Appeal No. 1997-0142
Application No. 08/373,721
expressed by the examiner have no apparent relationship at all
to the first paragraph requirements of section 112.
As a consequence of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1
through 20.
With regard to the section 103 rejection, the examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to use the dyebath of Navratil in the process of
Farmer because Navratil teaches that the surfactants have a
hydrotroping or solubilizing effect on the disperse dyes, and
that if the disperse dyes are dissolved in water with the aid
of said surfactants at 70 to 100 degrees centigrade, dyeings
can be carried out on polyester at 120-150 degrees centigrade”
(answer, page 7). The record presented by this appeal compels
us to not agree with the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
It is well settled that obviousness requires a suggestion
to modify as well as a reasonable expectation of success. In
re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-1681
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In the case before us, it is questionable
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007