Ex Parte Brundage et al - Page 5


               Appeal No. 2004-1939                                                                                                  
               Application 10/120,497                                                                                                

               conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or                  
               workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).                                                                        
                       Accordingly, we determine that, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this art one of                         
               ordinary skill in the art routinely following the combined teachings of Jessup, Kaneko and the                        
               Phase 3 reformulated gasoline standards would have arrived at the claimed gasoline composites                         
               encompassed by appealed claim 44, including each and every limitation thereof, without                                
               recourse to appellants’ disclosure.  See, e.g., Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great lakes Plastics Inc.,                     
               75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“In this case, the reason to                              
               combine [the references] arose from the very nature of the subject matter involved, the size of                       
               the card intended to be enclosed.”); In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986-87, 18 USPQ2d 1885,                              
               1888-89 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The extent to which such suggestion [to select elements of various                         
               teachings in order to form the claimed invention] must be explicit in, or may be fairly inferred                      
               from, the references, is decided on the facts of each case, in light of the prior art and its                         
               relationship to the applicant’s invention.”); In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d                        
               1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is                            
               whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed]                     
               process should be carried out and would have a reasonable likelihood of success, viewed in light                      
               of the prior art. [Citations omitted] Both the suggestion and the expectation of success must be                      
               founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208                  
               USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a                                  
               secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor                       
               is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.                     
               Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those                       
               of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673,                       
               1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . .                     
               There is always at least a possibility of unexpected results, that would then provide an objective                    
               basis for showing the invention, although apparently obvious, was in law nonobvious. [Citations                       
               omitted.] For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.                   
               [Citations omitted.]”).                                                                                               


                                                                - 5 -                                                                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007