-- Use of a known element for its intended purpose is evidence of obviousness. --
From within Ex parte Garland Industries / Strand
Use of a known element for its intended purpose is evidence of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc., 396 U.S. 57, 59 (1969).
Likewise generally prima facie obvious is the use of a combination of two materials each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is also used for that purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980); In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 276 (CCPA 1960). Use of a combination of catalysts is explicitly suggested by Osae. ¶ 0067. Cf. Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997), where a mixture of two known individual elements for their known purpose was suggested by the prior art.
We have considered applicant’s remaining arguments and find none that warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejections. Cf. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012).