Appeal 2006-2589
Application 10/618,499
464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The
motivation need not be found in the references sought to be
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including
common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the
problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545,
549 (CCPA 1969) (“Having established that this knowledge was in
the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the
solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without
any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”); In re
Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-812
(CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”).
The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made
explicit and should “identify a reason that would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements” in the
manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
The Appellants’ arguments regarding the moisture content of
the lignocellulosic material are not persuasive (Br. 10-12). The
Examiner found that Diehr describes the formation of articles of
lignocellulosic materials coated with an organic polyisocyanate.
The Examiner recognized that Diehr did not describe the moisture
content of the lignocellulosic material as 0.1 to less than 2.0% by
weight as specified in the claimed invention (Answer 4-5).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013