Appeal 2007-0615
Application 10/204,304
silicone polymers (or fluorosilicone polymer in Macur) in sensors (Jolson,
col. 8, ll. 53-56; Macur, col. 3, ll. 46-48, 59-60), and Lakowicz discloses
controlling oxygen sensitivity of the sensor by modifying the chemical
composition of the substrate (i.e., silicone in Lakowicz) (Lakowicz 537).
Accordingly, the prior art would have provided motivation for substituting a
fluorinated silicone polymer of Jolson or a fluorosilicone polymer of Macur
for the silicone polymer of Lakowicz. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Moreover, we add that substitution of one known element for another
known element in the field must do more than yield a predictable result.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1395 (2007). Jolson discloses using fluorinated silicone polymers in gas
sensors because of their chemical inertness and high gas permeabilities
(Jolson, col. 8, ll. 53-56). Moreover, Jolson indicates the interchangeability
of silicone polymer for fluorinated silicone polymers (Jolson, col. 8, l. 53,
“Silicone polymers can also be fluorinated . . . .”). Macur uses
fluorosilicone polymer in the oxygen sensor because of its oxygen
permeability and ion impermeability (Macur, col. 3, ll. 46-48, 59-60).
Lakowicz uses silicone because of its oxygen permeability and its barrier
properties (Lakowicz 536). In the present case, the Appellant in effect
merely replaces a conventional silicone substrate with fluoridated silicone
polymer, each of which is known in the prior art as evinced by the
disclosures of Jolson, Macur and Lakowicz. Thus, it would have been
obvious to substitute the fluorinated silicone polymer of Jolson or the
fluorosilicone polymer of Macur for Lakowicz’s silicone polymer because
doing so is merely the “predictable use of prior art elements according to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013