Appeal 2007-2916
Application 10/225,502
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 or non-obviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82
USPQ2d at 1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18. A person having ordinary
skill in the art uses known elements and process steps for their intended
purpose. Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S.
57, 90 S.Ct. 305 (1969); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 96
S.Ct. 1532, 1537 (1976); Dunbar v. Myers, 4 Otto (94 U.S.) 187, 195
(1876). Furthermore, to render an invention obvious, the prior art does not
have to address the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1741-42, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16
USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc); In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430,
40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[a]lthough the motivation to
combine here differs from that of the applicant, the motivation in the prior
art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the
applicant to establish obviousness." citing In re Dillon).
A. Rejection based on McCullough and Kawasaki
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over
McCullough in view of Kawasaki (Answer 5).
McCullough discloses a moldable composition having a thermal
activity of about 22 W/moK and comprising (i) 30-60 vol. % of a liquid
crystal polymer matrix, (ii) 25-60 vol. % of a relatively high aspect ratio
filler, e.g., alumina, and (iii) 10-25 vol. % of a relatively low aspect ratio
filler, e.g., boron nitride (FF 10). The claim compositions require, in
relevant part, (a) the volumes of alumina and boron nitride to be
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013