Appeal No. 2004-0824
Application 09/879,422
the art, the product claimed in the appellants’ claim 21.1 See
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
The appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
EP ‘824 and PCT ‘377 (reply brief, page 3). That motivation
would have been to provide a solid bisphenol A diglycidyl ether
as a stabilizer for the EP ‘824 plastics as discussed above.
The appellants, therefore, have not effectively rebutted the
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we conclude that the appellants’ claimed product
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 21-23 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combined teachings of Molenaar, EP ‘824, PCT ‘377
and GB ‘637 is affirmed.
1 A discussion of Molennaar and GB ‘637 is not necessary to
our decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007