Appeal 2007-2023
Application 10/757,453
to the reasons contemplated by the inventor. See KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1732, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389, 1396 (2007)
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2006)(“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious] need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the 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.”). See also
In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.Cir.1992)
(“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is
provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”)
Although Nishi’s invention is directed to a fuel hose which does not
employ a separate, adhesive layer, the Examiner properly relied upon Nishi
for a teaching that the bond between a layer of fluororesin and a layer of a
polyamide and/or polyester may be improved by addition of a functional
group to the fluororesin. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s conclusion (Answer 8) that one of ordinary skill in the art,
seeking to improve upon the adhesive bonding between Nishino’s inner and
middle layers, would have been motivated to add a functional group to the
fluororesin of Nishino’s inner layer as taught by Nishi to improve adhesion
to the polyamide and polyester components of Nishino’s adhesive layer.
We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
which Appellants have failed to overcome.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013