Appeal 20072907
Application 10644791
secondary considerations guard against the employment of impermissible
hindsight.45 Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.46
Saito alone teaches the use of molybdenum or tungsten trioxide with a
melamine/isocyanuric acid composition that appears to be melamine
cyanurate. Saito is pursuing the same goal as the present inventors of
eliminating halogens and antimony from the epoxy resin. Saito also
recognizes the problems of using phosphoric acid compounds as fire
retardants. Even if Saito does not teach melamine cyanurate, one skilled in
the art would readily apprehend that melamine cyanurate could be used in
place of Saito's mystery composition after reading Yamaguchi. Fujii
reinforces the desirability of using blends of fire retardants and counsels
against using metal oxides alone.
The claimed composition combines familiar elements of the prior art
according to known methods to yield predictable results, which is sufficient
to establish obviousness.47 Blending an oxide of chromium, molybdenum,
or tungsten with melamine cyanurate as fire retardants for an epoxy resin
substantially free of halogens, antimony, and phosphorous is well within the
scope of what the cited references would have taught or suggested to a
person having ordinary skill in the art.
45 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). The
record on appeal does not contain objective evidence of secondary
considerations.
46 In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994)
47 Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161,
82 USPQ2d 1687, 1690-91 (Fed. Cir. 2007), citing KSR Int'l, 127 S. Ct.
at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013