Appeal No. 2006-1761
Application No. 10/153,074
re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500, 226 USPQ 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir.
1985), where the court affirmed the obviousness rejection of the
claims in light of the prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites
will work” in detergent formulations, even though the “inventors
selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands’ of
compounds.” In this appeal we have the generic teaching of
silicones as sealants of fuel cell components in Koschany as well
as the teachings of Kovar of the advantages of his specific
silicone sealants in the field of sealing technology.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. However,
appellants present arguments that the examples and comparative
examples in the specification produce “surprising and unexpected
results” (Brief, pages 8-9; Reply Brief, page 2, footnote 1, and
page 6). Accordingly, we consider the evidence for and against
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007