Appeal No. 1998-2622
Application No. 08/530,684
of sulfones (see col. 2, l. 51-col. 3, l. 14). However, the
mere generic disclosure of removing organic sulfur compounds
from a liquid hydrocarbon feedstock is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Baird,
16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir.
1992). There must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation
to modify the teachings of the reference to the claimed
subject matter in order to support an obviousness conclusion.
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp.,
72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
This suggestion or motivation may be derived from the prior
art reference itself, from the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be
solved. See Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
Siskin itself only suggests that the organic sulfur
compounds may include sulfides, mercaptans, disulfides and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007