Appeal 2006-2980
Application 10/683,240
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Meisert US 4,280,007 Jul. 21, 1981
Nissen US 4,590,219 May 21, 1986
Vratsanos US 5,173,516 Dec. 22, 1992
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Meisert in view of Vratsanos. Claims 1-3 also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nissen in view of Vratsanos.
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner reasonably determined that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to form a cellular amine cross-
linked polyurethane elastomer utilizing a quaternary ammonium salt as one
of the reaction component within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103? On this
record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would
have been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013