Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 9
Application No. 08/093,664
NH , while Apparatus F provided a 100% elimination rate for NH7
3 3
but well less than a 100% elimination rate for H S and CH SH. 2 3
The declarant concluded from the factual evidence that the
present invention produces unexpected results.8
When the appellant demonstrates substantially improved
results, as the appellant did here, and states that the results
were unexpected, this suffices to establish unexpected results in
the absence of evidence to the contrary. See In re Soni, 54 F.3d
746, 751, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The examiner
has not provided any persuasive basis to question the comparative
data and assertion that the demonstrated results were unexpected.
Thus, we are persuaded that the examiner's determination that the
evidence contained in the two declarations was insufficient to
rebut the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness was
erroneous.
7Apparatus F was a deodorizing apparatus wherein the
phosphoric acid-supporting active carbon honeycomb preceded the
active carbon honeycomb.
8We note that Mizutani specifically teaches that the order
of his acid-treated, alkali-treated, and untreated active carbon
elements is arbitrary.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007