Appeal 2007-2049
Application 10/475,223
D. Analysis
Taking into account the teachings and suggestions of the prior art as
well as the knowledge within the art they evince, we determine that the
evidence supports a conclusion of obviousness.
The prior art shows that a wide range of compounds were known in
the art to stabilize a wide range of polymer compositions including such
compositions as polychloroprene latexes (FF 1-5). Not only are the
compounds of the claims known stabilizers, Denki provides a reason to
combine various stabilizers: to stabilize polychloroprene latexes against
different types of UV light, i.e., both light under 300 nm wavelength and
light above such wavelengths (FF 3-5). Given that different stabilizers
stabilize against different types of light, combining them would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to accomplish the various light
stabilizing functions. “The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Moreover, where the purpose of each stabilizing additive is the same,
it would have been obvious to use them together to accomplish the
stabilizing purpose. The result would have been predictable in the sense that
one would have expected the stabilizers to act together to stabilize the
polychloroprene latex. As stated in In re Kerkhoven, “[i]t is prima facie
obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior
art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition
which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d
846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013