Appeal 2007-2181
Application 10/261,862
and Shields, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 16-19, and further in
view of Seth.
Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of any of claims
1-13 or 16-20. Therefore, we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1. 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(v).
II. Obviousness
A claimed invention is not patentable if its subject matter would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391
(2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 3 (1966).
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art and (4) relevant
objective evidence of obviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at
1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18. All claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580,
583 (CCPA 1974).
A. Findings of Fact
1. Nakaishi
[1] Nakaishi describes a heat bonded aramid paper/PET/aramid paper
laminate said to have good flexibility, mechanical characteristics, heat
resistance, electrical insulating properties and chemical resistance and
to be useful in transformers, motors, generators, etc. (¶¶ 7-8, 24-25).
[2] According to Nakaishi, the aramid paper can be calendered "to realize
the desired mechanical characteristics, thickness and density" (¶ 19).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013