Appeal No. 1997-0844
Application No. 08/269,979
references were combined as proposed by the examiner and the
effluent of Zibrida was used in the process of Davister, one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to adjust
the effluent pH since the effluent was not being discharged
into the environment. Thus, the process water of Zibrida
would have been at a pH of at least about 10.5, which would
not reasonably have appeared to be identical with or slightly
different than the nearly neutral pH process water of claim 18
as used in claim 25. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774
F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“When it
is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order
to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is
any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the
selection made by the applicant.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of the reference evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Davister
in view of Zibrida is reversed.
D. Summary
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007