Appeal 2007-0619
Application 10/178,008
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In evaluating the prior art
references for a suggestion, it is proper to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references, but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 827, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
“Eliminating the cost ….would have been sufficient motivation for
doing so.” In re Thompson, 549 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277
(CCPA 1976)
“Economics alone would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the
art….” In re Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226, 1229 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA
1976).
VII. ANALYSIS
The Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s findings at page 3 of
the Answer that:
Kumar et al. disclose or suggest the basic claimed method of
forming an elastomeric printing stamp including (1) providing a
plastic stamp master, wherein the stamp master has a pattern
and the pattern has at least one feature below 100 microns in
size (column 4, line 60), (2) casting an elastomeric printing
stamp using the stamp master or mold by contacting an
elastomer to the stamp master or mold (column 8, lines 30-49),
and (3) curing, hardening or crosslinking the elastomeric
printing stamp. (See Br. 3-6 and Reply Br. 1-5).
Nor have the Appellants challenged the Examiner’s findings at pages 3 and
4 of the Answer that:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013