Appeal 2006-2668
Application 10/264,763
motor system. Illustrative additional or auxiliary fillers include, among
others, silicon dioxide, calcium or alumina silicates, ammonium
polyphosphate, diammonium phosphate, and oxamide” (Nelson, col. 5,
ll. 57-62).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A prima facie case of obviousness is established where the Examiner
demonstrates that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of
a combination of familiar elements according to known methods KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
As noted by the Examiner, Boothe and Nelson are both directed to liner
compositions and both references disclose that it is known in the art to
include one or more fillers in such compositions to impart various properties
(Answer 3; Findings of Fact 3 and 7-9). Although Boothe states that the
preferable filler of the disclosed composition “does not absorb ultra-violet
radiations, and can be selected for [sic, from] silica, calcium carbonate and
dicyandiamide” (Boothe, col. 1, ll. 32-34; Finding of Fact 3), we are in
agreement with the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to include zinc borate and/or alumina
trihydrate as a filler component in Boothe’s composition given Nelson’s
disclosure of the fire and flame retardant benefits imparted by these
components in liner compositions containing a thermally curable polymer
(Answer 3; Findings of Fact 6 and 8). See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs.,
Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (For an
obviousness analysis, even the fact that “a specific embodiment is taught to
be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013