Appeal No. 2002-0771 Page 7
Application No. 09/294,288
Appellants to show that there is indeed a difference. Appellants provide no objective evidence
that bubble break up and scattering does not occur in the process of Torregrossa.
Appellants have also failed to convince us of reversible error in the Examiner’s alternate
determination that bubble break up and scattering is the result of relative flow velocities and
amount of shear and that the result would have been arrived at through routine experimentation
(Answer at 4-5). Torregrossa wishes to optimize mass transfer and indicates that a large
interfacial surface area, a high degree of agitation, and a large number of bubbles result in rapid
mass transfer (Torregrossa at col. 1, ll. 26-36). Bubble break up and scattering lead to higher
levels of interfacial surface area and more sites for reaction. Thus, when conducting routine
experimentation to optimize mass transfer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at
relative flow velocities and shear amounts which break up and scatter the bubbles. We agree
with the Examiner that Torregrossa teaches the general conditions of the claimed process such
that a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105
USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Appellants argue that Torregrossa teaches away from the invention by disclosing that the
gas bubbles are moved to the center of the vortex (Brief at 13; citing Torregrossa at col. 1, ll. 18-
36). But bubble movement to the center does not preclude bubble break up and scattering.
Moreover, Torregrossa goes on to state that large interfacial surface area contributes to rapid
mass transfer. Breaking up the bubbles leads to larger interfacial surface area. Therefore, the
disclosure, rather than leading away, is compatible with bubble break up. Torregrossa does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007