Appeal No. 2002-2063
Application No. 09/635,093
The appellants make additional arguments that Furness is not
related to the problem of hazardous emission evolution. However,
such a relation is unnecessary. Furness teaches the addition of
the claimed compound in the claimed system for a different reason,
mold release abilities. An obviousness rejection does not require
a suggestion of the same problem that is being solved by appellant
– all that is required is that the rejection provides a teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to make the combination. See In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Indeed, we find that such motivation is present in that
the addition of the FAME will result in better mold release
properties.
Appellants urge that a completely different polyurethane
structure is formed (Appeal Brief, page 14, lines 14-20). This
could be interpreted as an unexpected result and indicia of
unobviousness. However, we are confined to the evidence of
record, and the argument is devoid of citation to any place in the
record where evidence of this purported difference may be found.
Accordingly, this unsupported attorney argument is unconvincing.
The difficulty with the appellants’ arguments is evidenced by
the summary which they urge at page 15, in which they state that
their invention provides a substitute for high boiling aromatic
hydrocarbon solvents, which substitute must effectively dissolve
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007