Appeal No. 96-3431
Application No. 08/307,535
The Miller reference is undeniably within the field of the
appellants' endeavor whereas the King and Norman references are
at least reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the appellants were involved. It follows that none of
these references can be characterized as being from a non-
analogous art. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171,
174 (CCPA 1979). Moreover, we are convinced that an artisan with
ordinary skill would have been motivated to effect the above
discussed combination of the applied prior art in order to obtain
the oxidation-inhibiting and detergent benefits desired by Miller
and respectively supplied by the King and Norman additives based
upon a reasonable expectation of success. In re O'Farrell, 853
F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
It is the appellants' further contention that, "even if the
cited references did establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
the results in Example 6 of the present specification are clearly
sufficient to rebut the prima facie case" (brief, page 17).
However, the data of Example 6 possess numerous deficiencies
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007