Appeal 2007-0906
Application 10/445,238
§ 103(a) Rejection
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See 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.”). Also, see KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007) (analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ).
Appellants present separate arguments for rejected independent claims
1 and 4, as well as dependent claim 6. The other rejected dependent claims
are not separately argued. Thus, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim for rejected claims 1-3 and we select claim 4 as the representative
claim for claims 4, 5, and 7-13.
The Examiner has determined that Clarke discloses a method for
making a laminate film composite by the thermoplastic coating of a
composite. The method includes, inter alia, the steps of: (1) applying a LCP
thermoplastic layer onto a tool working surface; (2) applying a layer of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013