Appeal No. 95-3977
Application 08/004,075
combinations of peroxy acids as claimed over the individual
peroxy acids of the prior art. According to appellants, these
results are unexpected.
The examiner attempts to rebut the showing in Table II by
noting that “Herting teaches synergy” and “no synergistic effect
is claimed” (emphasis examiner’s, see the answer, page 9).
However, Herting only relates to the synergy of certain
carboxylic acids, not peroxy carboxylic acids, and is not
directed to the particular combination here claimed. There is no
evidence of the equivalence of carboxylic and peroxy carboxylic
acids. Therefore, the results achieved by the carboxylic acid in
Herting are not predictive of the results that can be attained by
the here claimed peroxy carboxylic acid combination. Finally,
there is no requirement that a “synergistic effect” has to be
claimed.
Weighing the combined teachings of the cited prior art and
the objective evidence of nonobviousness together, we must
conclude that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of
the invention. See Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced
Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 1570, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1486
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007