Appeal 2007-1384
Application 10/122,683
NaCl solutions were the humidification solution of choice as
NaCl was much more benign than KOH towards both humans
and equipment. However, concerns over migration of the
humidification solution into the galvanic cell, resulting in
contamination of the KOH electrolyte with NaCl, dictated use
of the same salt (e.g., either KOH or NaCl) for both the
humidifying solution and the electrolyte.
As revealed by this paragraph, it was widely accepted by those with
ordinary skill in this art that KOH was the electrolyte of choice whereas a
sodium chloride solution was a more desirable humidification medium
because it is more benign than KOH. However, concerns over possible
contamination “dictated use” (id.) of the same salt (either KOH or NaCl) for
both the humidifying solution and the electrolyte. The circumstances lead
the Affiant (Affidavit 3, ¶ 13) as well as Appellant (Br. 4) to conclude that it
would not have been obvious to use different salts for the humidification
solution and the electrolyte. However, the evidence of record including the
Stevens Affidavit militates for rather than against a conclusion of
obviousness.
This is because the Affidavit evinces that KOH and NaCl were known
respectively for use as both an electrolyte and a humidifying solution and
that KOH was known as particularly desirable for electrolyte use whereas
NaCl was known as particularly desirable for humidifying use. This
knowledge and desiderata would have led an artisan to consider using KOH
as an electrolyte and NaCl solution as a humidifier.
According to the Affidavit and the Brief, an artisan would not have
so-used these different salts because of concerns over possible
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013