Appeal No. 1996-2320
Application 08/221,224
Appellant argues that the examples in his specification
indicate that his process produces an unexpected result, which
is a reduction in undesirable oxidizable impurities (brief,
pages 6-7). As indicated in appellant’s specification (page
7, lines 5-13), these oxidizable impurities are unreacted
components or compounds including intermediates which are
produced during the process. Koch’s disclosure (page 7) that
material in an empty pipe, which was used in appellant’s
comparative examples, results in unreacted material at the
center exiting before it is fully reacted, whereas use of a
static mixer produces uniform plug flow, indicates that
appellant’s observation that less unreacted feed and
intermediates exit the reactor when a static mixer is used is
an expected result rather than an unexpected result.
“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a
claimed invention, just as unexpected beneficial results are
evidence of unobviousness.” In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397,
187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975); In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947,
950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535,
537, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007