Appeal 2007-0295
Application 09/051,565
(CCPA 1962); cf., In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685,
686 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests
that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is
unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. See In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the reference evidence is sufficient
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We determine that Perry does
not teach away from the claimed subject matter since this reference merely
lists the “pros and cons” of each type of stripping column, i.e., packed
columns vs. plate columns, and does not lead away from the result sought by
Appellant (see factual finding (4) listed above). In other words, Perry
teaches some advantages and disadvantages for treating beer wort with a
packed column (id.). We determine that the admitted prior art teaches the
use of packed columns or plate columns in the treatment of beer wort to
remove unwanted volatile components, and this finding alone would have
suggested use of the packed column designs, such as those taught by Perry
(either alone or as a substitute for the plate column of Krüger) (see factual
finding (2) listed above). We further determine that Perry discloses or
suggests every device limitation as required by the claims on appeal (see
factual findings (5) through (7) listed above). Additionally, the APA and
Perry disclose and suggest every method limitation as required by the claims
on appeal (id.). Regarding the limitations of the dependent claims, we adopt
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013