Appeal No. 2006-2617
Application No. 10/729,446
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem
to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed.
Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
We agree with the examiner that the teachings of Sosa and Bowen
would have made the process recited in claim 19 obvious to one of ordinary
skill. In a process of polymerizing styrene monomer with a styrene-
butadiene copolymer, Bowen states that “[t]ypically, polymerization of the
styrene monomer is initiated in this process thermally, although a chemical
initiator may also be used for this purpose.” (Bowen, col. 3, ll. 64-67.)
Thus, Bowen’s and Sosa’s processes are both directed to polymerizing
styrene monomer with elastomers containing styrene and butadiene. The
disclosure that heat was a suitable method of initiating styrene
polymerization in Bowen’s process would have suggested to one of skill in
the art that heat was also a suitable method of initiating styrene
polymerization in Sosa’s process. One of ordinary skill practicing Sosa’s
process would therefore have been motivated by Bowen to thermally initiate
the polymerization of styrene monomer, as recited in claim 19.
Appellants again argue that Sosa “teaches a Transparent Impact
Polystyrene, not HIPS.” (Br. 4.) Appellants further argue that rather than
teaching a HIPS material having a haze value of less than 12 percent, Bowen
“teaches an opaque film.” (Id.) Thus, argue Appellants, “there is no
motivation to combine Bowen with Sosa ‘043 for the purpose of providing
the missing limitations in Sosa ‘043 (e.g., HIPS.)” (Id.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013