Appeal 2007-0652
Application 10/320,028
ingredients" (page 13 of principal Br., last para.). However, as noted above,
Appellants' Specification expressly discloses that "[t]he process is intended
to protect temperature and shear sensitive additives such as fragrances and
organic colorants" (page 4, Specification, para. [0008]). Hence, it can be
seen that both Appellants and Cornelis share a common objective.
Moreover, it is well-settled that finding an additional advantage of a feature
disclosed by the prior art does not impart patentability to a known or obvious
feature. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Furthermore, it is not required for a finding of obviousness that the
motivation of one of ordinary skill in the art be the same as an applicant's
motivation. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). Also, we are satisfied that Appellants' solution to the problem of
cleaning the entire system for only a simple color or fragrance change would
have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Ludwig,
353 F.2d 241, 244, 147 USPQ 420, 421 (CCPA 1965).
Appellants also argue that the rotary pump of Phallen driven by a
servo-motor was used subsequent to the manufacturing process, i.e., "the
failing equipment did not handle delivery of individual components to a
reactor" (page 15 of principal Br., last para.). However, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to employ the known pump of Phallen to accurately deliver a specific
amount of ingredients to the reactor. Appellants have provided no factual
support for the statement that "[a] significant break through of the present
invention was appellant's realization that the servo-driven rotary pump
approach could be applied to the manufacture of personal care
compositions" (id.). Indeed, the present Specification attaches no particular
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013