Appeal No. 1996-0270
Application 08/118,128
For appellant’s claimed method to have been prima facie
obvious, the prior art must have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, carrying out the claimed method,
and also must have provided such a person with a reasonable
expectation of success in doing so. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d
488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Sun discloses (pages 322-23) that
contamination of soil by pesticide waste is a problem, and
that a number of ligands for Fe form ferric chelates which3+
are effective, in combination with hydrogen peroxide, for
oxidizing 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) which,
appellant acknowledges (specification, page 6, lines 18-19),
was a known pesticide. Appellant also acknowledges that Sun
discloses the ferric chelates used in appellant’s method
(specification, page 6, lines 1-5; page 7, lines 19-21). The
disclosure by Sun, therefore, would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with motivation to use appellant’s
ferric chelates to decontaminate soil. As explained as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007