Appeal No. 1999-1810
Application 08/288,433
disclosed by Keating. The appellant does not address this
argument by the examiner but, rather, focus only on the
examiner’s alternative argument (answer, page 6) regarding
removing barium periodate prior to electrolysis (reply brief,
pages 2-3).
The appellant argues that Keating is speculative in that
Keating merely states that he believes that the barium-iodine
product is barium periodate (answer, pages 10 and 17). We are
not convinced by this argument because establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness requires only a reasonable
expectation of success, see In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
903-4, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and Keating’s
belief that the precipitate is barium periodate would have
provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable
expectation of success in using Keating’s process to remove
iodine as barium periodate.
The appellant argues that Keating’s process is not a
purification process (brief, pages 10 and 17). We are not
convinced by this argument because Keating’s removal of
periodate from the solution as a precipitate in the membrane
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007