Appeal 2006-3312
Application 09/816,774
would reach the much higher temperature of 70°C (Br. 11). Appellant’s
assertion appears to be contrary to the purpose of the lubricating member,
which is to reduce friction.
In the above context of the rejection, it matters not that the references
are silent regarding a temperature limitation (Br. 10) or that the references
do not discuss an elution problem at high temperatures (Br. 9 and Reply Br.
5). Nor must the reference preclude every high temperature operation
(Reply Br. 6-7). The references suggest using the lubricating member in
food processing equipment. The consideration of the question of
obviousness includes the consideration of how one of ordinary skill in the art
would have used that food-processing equipment given the knowledge in the
art at the time of the invention. At least some food processing applications
such as mixing and cooling take place at ambient or lower temperatures,
temperatures within the claimed range.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 1-7 that Appellant
has not sufficiently rebutted.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the decision of the Examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013