Appeal 2007-4259
Application 10/417,752
comprising N-methylol acrylamide for non-woven fibers within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
(2) Have Appellants presented evidence sufficient to overcome the rejection
under § 103?
We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second
question in the negative.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments and
evidence. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in the
present record. We add the following.1
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have
been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41,
1 Appellants have presented arguments directed to some of the rejected
claims separately. We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims
not separately argued. We will also address the Appellants’ arguments
directed to specific claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013