Appeal 2007-1853
Application 10/987,347
particles, and reinforcing fibers are mechanically blended with or without
heat prior to being molded via a known process (Tanaka, p. 5, ll. 8-17).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Tanaka would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to cold press the above blend to produce
molded adsorbents within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). On this
record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
Although Tanaka exemplifies molding processes employing external
heat (heat press) to produce molded adsorbents, it does not foreclose
employing other known molding processes (pp. 5-8). Specifically, Tanaka
teaches that “[t]he blend thus prepared is molded by a known process, such
as one using a belt press or heat press or injection molding” (p. 5, ll. 16-18).
The Examiner has taken official notice that cold press is also a known
molding process (Answer 4). The Appellants have not specifically
challenged this official notice (1Br. 3-6).
Given the interchangeability of known molding processes, we concur
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
employ a known molding process, such as cold press or heat press, with a
reasonable expectation of successfully producing molded adsorbents. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
The Appellants have not referred to any secondary evidence to rebut
the prima facie case established by the Examiner. Accordingly, based on the
1 Our reference to the Brief (Br.) is to the Amended Brief filed on September
21, 2006.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013