Appeal 2007-3412
Application 10/832,450
utilities as a motor vehicle windshield or as glazing for buildings suggest a
large variety of common problems that one skilled in the art might wish to
address related to impact strength, adhesion of laminations, aging, etc.
As the Court explained, it is also error to assume "that a person of
ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those
elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id.
Thus, quite the opposite from the myopic focus urged by D'Errico, we do not
doubt that the ordinary worker would look to the teachings of Toyama
regarding the effects of plasticizers on the glass transition temperature of
PVBs used as interlayers in glass laminates. The common ester plasticizers
(esters, e.g., dihexyl adipate) and the large overlap of recommended ranges
(861 patent, 15–50, preferably 25–40 phr (FF 20); 848 patent, 20–80, more
commonly 25–45 phr (FF 28); Toyama, 30–70 phr (FF 40)) would also have
suggested to the ordinary worker that the advantages taught by the various
references would likely be obtainable by incorporating the teachings into
related laminates. Moreover, the teachings of Toyama regarding the relation
between tan δ, Tg, and impact strength (FF 42–44) would have been of
special interest because it provides a measurable parameter that could be
used to predict the performance of the laminates.
D'Errico's argument that a "compelling reason" must exist to support
the obviousness of a combination of teachings (Br. at 4 and 6) is not the law.
Rather, the examiner must demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art
would find both a suggestion to perform that process, and a reasonable
expectation of successfully doing so in the prior art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d
488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover, "the
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013