Appeal No. 2006-2153
Application 10/447,199
In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425-26, 208 USPQ 871, 881-82 (CCPA 1981); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1497-
1500, 226 USPQ 1005, 1006-08 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397-98, 187
USPQ 481, 484-85 (CCPA 1975); 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.]”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Chen and the Warren
references with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 13, 16 and 17
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007