Ex Parte Menz et al - Page 5


              Appeal No. 2006-3179                                                               Page 5                
              Application No. 10/477,069                                                                               

              He explains:                                                                                             
                     Ogawa teaches a method analogous to the one taught by Gupta that achieves                         
                     the surface modification explicitly desired by Gupta (i.e., the formation of a                    
                     substrate having a siloxane capped with a fluoroalkyl layer, the siloxane bonded                  
                     to the substrate surface through Si-O bonds). The method of Ogawa comprises                       
                     dipping the substrate (which has active carboxyl and/or hydroxyl groups thereon)                  
                     into a solution of the applicant’s specifically claimed fluoroalkyl silane (see Col. 5,           
                     lines 46 - 61, Col.11, lines 5 - 60, and Col.12, lines 18 -40).                                   
              Answer, page 12.                                                                                         
                     Appellants challenge the rejection on several grounds.  They argue that there                     
              would have been no motivation to have replaced “the type of coating components used                      
              in Gupta by a chemically totally different group of compounds” as taught in Ogawa.                       
              Brief, page 6, ¶ 4.  They contend the differences included the presence of an amide                      
              linker in Gupta, which was missing from Ogawa, and a two-component system, rather                        
              than the one-component system described by Ogawa.  Id., page 5; page 6, ¶¶ 1 and 2.                      
              Furthermore, Appellants argue that the references are from different fields of endeavor                  
              and therefore not properly combinable.  Id., page 5, ¶ 4.                                                
                     “When patentability turns on the question of obviousness, the search for and                      
              analysis of the prior art includes evidence relevant to the finding of whether there is a                
              teaching, motivation, or suggestion to select and combine the references relied on as                    
              evidence of obviousness.”  In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433                          
              (Fed. Cir. 2002).  A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art               
              teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art.  “[T]he teaching,                       
              motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than                     
              expressly stated in the references.  The test for an implicit showing is what the                        
              combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007