Appeal 2007-0407
Application 10/243,796
Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir.
2006)(“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”); In
re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having
established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then
properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness
‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill
in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”);
In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA
1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom...”). The analysis supporting
obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1731, 81 USPQ2d at
1389.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter under § 103,
the Examiner has primarily relied on the disclosures of Waldrop and Palmer
(Answer 6-10). The Examiner has found at page 6 of the Answer that
Waldrop teaches a resin transfer molding process that includes providing a
fiber reinforced panel on a tool. The Examiner cited various components
from the figures of Waldrop. However, the Examiner did not cite to portions
of the reference narrative disclosure. The Examiner has recognized that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013