1 76, 79; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972).
2 Apart from some unclear subjective assertions concerning "permanency,"
3 applicant has failed to offer conclusive evidence to credibly establish what
4 "permanency" results are actually obtained and whether those results would
5 or would not be unexpected.
6
7 (4)
8 Claim 19 (but not claims 1 and 17) calls for use of a coating
9 comprising (1) particulate matter (e.g., CAB-O-SILŪ fumed silica) and
10 (2) coating oil. Silicone oil was used in the prior art to achieve detackifying.
11 Specification, page 3, lines 12-14. One skilled in the art would have
12 recognized that CAB-O-SILŪ fumed silica could also be used to achieve
13 detackifying. What the prior art reveals is that both silicon oil and CAB-O-
14 SILŪ fumed silica are individually known as detackifiers. Well-established
15 in the binding precedent of our reviewing court, is the proposition that it is
16 generally prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is
17 taught in the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a
18 third composition which also used for that purpose. See, e.g., In re
19 Kerkoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), In re
20 Pinten, 459 F.2d 1053, 1055, 173 USPQ 801, 803 (CCPA 1972), In re Dial,
21 326 F.2d 430, 432, 140 USPQ 244, 245 (CCPA 1964) and In re Crockett,
22 279 F.2d 274, 276, 126 USPQ 186, 188 (CCPA 1960). Consistent with
23 respectful adherence to stare decisis, in this case there is no apparent cogent
24 basis for departing from a long-standing general rule established by the cited
25 precedent.
26
27
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013