Appeal No. 2005-1549
Application No. 10/193,407
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). This
test requires us to take into account not only the specific
teachings of the prior art reference, but also any inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968).
With these precedents in mind, we turn next to the
examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 15 through 17, 19, 20, 22 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure
of Enlow. We note that the appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s determination that the limitations recited in claims
13, 15 through 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 (e.g., molding temperature
and pressure, and flexural modulus and hardness of plastic parts
for automobiles) are well within the ambit of one of ordinary
skill in the art.3 The appellants only argue that Enlow would
not have suggested (1) the claimed plastic film sheet, (2) the
claimed vacuum molding in a mold cavity and (3) the claimed
3 It appears to be the examiner’s position that the
limitations recited in claims 13, 15 through 17, 19, 20, 22 and
23 are result effective variables. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980)(“[D]iscovery of an optimum
value of a result effective variable in a known process is
ordinarily within the skill of the art”).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007