Appeal 2007-3673
Application 10/365,189
component A and component B. However, the Examiner reasoned that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to mix in an extruder or kneader two thermoplastic polyurethanes
as exemplified in Muehlfeld, Kaufhold ‘638, and Kaufhold ‘389 to form a
single molding composition. The Examiner concluded that it is prima facie
obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior
art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to
be used for the very same purpose, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,
850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (Answer 3-8).
Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s factual determination
that Muehlfeld, Kaufhold ‘638, and Kaufhold ‘389 each exemplify
thermoplastic polyurethanes that correspond to component A and component
B for use in molding compositions. For each of the stated rejections,
Appellants contends that the cited reference does not have a teaching or
disclosure to mix the exemplified thermoplastic polyurethanes. Appellants
contend that the examples in the Specification provide “surprising results”
that overcome any possible prima facie case of obviousness (Br. 8, 10, and
11).
Although Muehlfeld, Kaufhold ‘638, and Kaufhold ‘389 do not
exemplify mixtures of thermoplastic polyurethane that correspond to
component A and component B, we are in complete agreement with the
Examiner’s determination that the references provide the requisite
motivation, suggestion, and teaching to use more than one thermoplastic
polyurethane because each is taught to be useful for the same or similar
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013