Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
specification confirms what a person having ordinary skill would have expected based on teachings
found in Cheron, i.e., adding water to the gas passing through the soda lime absorbent will compensate
for any reduction of the water content of the soda lime caused by the gas flow, thereby permitting more
efficient, better purification of the gas. As often stated by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals, expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as
unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness. In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 187 USPQ
481 (CCPA 1975); In re Skoner , 517 F.2d 947, 186 USPQ 80 (CCPA 1975); In re Gershon,
372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967). Second, we agree with the examiner that there is
insufficient data to determine what breakthrough level corresponds to the 10% CO loading in HP
2
(Ans. page 17, paragraph three). Appellant has the burden of explaining the data, whether in the form
of a direct or indirect comparison with the closest prior art. This includes noting any differences in
reagent composition, assay parameters, etc. between the prior art and the experimental conditions used
for the comparison proferred, as well as the reasons for and significance of such differences. Third, the
single data point of example 1 does not support the scope of claim 1. Therefore, based on this record,
we find the argued "unexpected results" lacks sufficient probative value to overcome the rejection.
b. Claims 7, 9, 13, 16 and 18
As to specific parameter claims 7, 9, 13, 16 and 18, the examiner found
Page 17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007