Appeal 2007-4147
Application 10/371,754
USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not
only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”). The
analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and
should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Appellant’s principal argument is that
obviousness is not based upon what an artisan could do or what an
artisan may try, but is based upon what an artisan would be
motivated to do with an expectation of success. In other words,
merely because Sieloff has used polyurethane resin in an adhesive
layer to bond polycarbonate to polyethylene-terephthalate is not a
teaching or motivation to use a polyurethane resin to bond a
polycarbonate to a layer comprising a block copolyestercarbonate.
There is not [sic. no] motivation or expectation that the adhesive
layer will bond these different layers. (Br. 6).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Brunelle differs
from the claimed invention because the reference does not teach the type of
adhesive used in the adhesive layer. Sieloff teaches a multilayer structure
having a polyurethane resin adhesive layer made from polyester or polyether
polyols and polyisocyanates such as methylenebis (phenyl isocyanate) (see
col. 3, ll. 7-45). The materials of the layers joined by the adhesive of Sieloff
are similar to the materials that form the layers of Brunelle. For example,
Sieloff discloses the adhesive layer bonds a polycarbonate layer to the light
valve layer composed of polyethylene-terephthalate (see col. 2, ll. 4-28).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013