Appeal 2007-0075
Application 10/759,299
conclusions set forth in the Answer. We add following primarily for
emphasis and completeness.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be
established absent some teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation in the
applied prior art references and/or knowledge generally available to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Pro-
Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The knowledge generally available to a person having ordinary skill
in the art includes facts admittedly well known in the art. See In re Nomiya,
509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)(The admittedly
known prior art in the Appellants’ Specification may be used in determining
the patentability of a claimed invention.); see also In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501,
503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
Here, the Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s finding that
Ikematsu ‘103 and ‘406 teach the claimed two-step process, except for
employing an aluminoxane component as part of their polymerization
catalyst systems. (Compare Answer 3-6 with Br. 14-19 and Reply Br. 4-5;
see also Iketmatsu ‘103, page 5, Abstract, pages 5-6, claim 1, and pages
9-11, para. 0006-0009 and Iketmatsu ‘406, page 2, para. 001, pages 3-4,
para. 0006, pages 4-6, para. 0010-0014 and 0016). Nor have the Appellants
disputed the Examiner’s finding that Ikematsu ‘103 and ‘406 teach forming
conjugated diene polymers having narrow molecular weight distributions
and high cis-1, 4-bond contents. (Compare Answer 3-6 with Br. 14-19 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013