Appeal 2007-3396
Application 1 11008,592
evidence of obviou~ness.'~ The examiner has also rejected all claims under
a double-patenting theory as having been obvious in view of the Eisen patent
claims and the Horn and Skowronski patents.
OBVIOUSNESS
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. l 4
Scope and content of the prior art
The Horn patent
Horn teaches processes for producing soft-elastic to rigid urethane
moldings having a cellular core, a compact peripheral zone, and a smooth
surface using polyisocyanate and water, rather than chlorofluorocarbons, as
the blowing agent.'' In discussing the prior art, Horn notes that using
l2 Norbert Eisen and Daniel Seidlitz, Method for producing so8 to semi-rigid
polyurethane integral foamed materials, US 6,590,003 B2 (issued 8 July
2003) (Eisen).
l3 Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 3.
14 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1 966), 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.
l5 Horn 1:8-19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013