Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 14
Application No. 10/225,395
answer and the examiner’s rebuttal of appellants’ lack of
motivation contentions, which we adopt as our own. We note that
motivation can be based on both economic as well as simplicity
factors, and need not be expressly mentioned by the prior art.
See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA
1976); In re Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226, 1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367
(CCPA 1976). We highlight that Valaitis teaches peroxide agents
that are known to promote cross-linking of EPDM and reduce the
radiation dosing required for curing. The use of the peroxides
of Valaitis in the radiation curing of EPDM in Urban would have
been a modification of Urban’s curing process that is well within
the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art; that is, a
modification that is not only suggested by the combined teachings
of the references but one that would have been accompanied by a
reasonable expectation of success in obtaining desired cross-
linking promotion and reduction in radiation requirements as
taught by Valaitis.
As to the specific question of "teaching away" raised in the
brief, our reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553,
31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994) stated:
[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007