Appeal 2007-2906 Application 10/295,315 The rejection The examiner has rejected all claims as having been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art in view of the Takeyasu patent.6 In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such secondary considerations guard against the employment of impermissible hindsight.7 Scope and content of the prior art The Takeyasu patent is directed to methods of producing a foamed synthetic resin using a specific foaming agent.8 The invention is characterized by the use of HFC-245fa and HFC-134a in combination.9 Takeyasu's weight percentage of HFC-134a and HFC-245fa is preferably 1- 80 and 20-99, respectively, and more preferably 1-60 and 40-99, respectively.10 There is substantial overlap in the ranges claimed: in parts by Takeyasu weight Claim 6 more preferred HFC-134a 5-50 1-60 HFC-245fa 50-95 40-99 6 Hiromitsu Takeyasu et al., Method for producing foamed synthetic resin, U.S. Patent 6,043,291 (issued 28 March 2000) (Takeyasu). 7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with approval in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). 8 Takeyasu 1:4-7. 9 Takeyasu 2:24-25. 10 Takeyasu 2:41-42. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013