Appeal 2007-1692
Application 10/415,009
pertinent art.’” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants’ argument also fails to take into account the interrelated
teachings of the prior art references and the effects of the demands on those
formulating polyurethane-based adhesives to reduce the toxic monomer
concentration. In finding that there was a reason to combine, the Examiner
properly took into account those interrelated teachings and the background
knowledge possessed by those of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the
references. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007) (“Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to
determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”).
With respect to claims 22, 24, and 36, Appellants contend that the
combination of Bolte and Schnabel do not contain a teaching or suggestion
of what is claimed (Br. 7-8). However, Appellants do not address the actual
rejection made by the Examiner. The contentions are not sufficiently
specific to allow us to review the rejection of these claims.
In the Reply Brief and for the first time on appeal, Appellants attempt to
rebut the rejection with an allegation of unexpected results. Appellants
allege that the examples beginning at page 46 of the Specification clearly
show the unexpected advantage of their adhesives over the prior art
adhesives, i.e., adhesives containing substantial amounts of monomer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013