Appeal No. 1998-3015 Page 6
Application No. 08/790,373
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that Conley
discloses a coalescer substantially as claimed and that while
Conley does not disclose flow velocity, the claimed flow
velocity would have been an obvious matter of process
optimization for one skilled in the art.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5, 8 and 9) that Conley
does not describe a screen formed of woven threads as recited
in claims 1 and 4 or a woven screen as recited in claims 8 to
11. We agree. Thus, even if the examiner were correct that
the claimed flow velocity would have been an obvious matter of
process optimization for one skilled in the art such a
modification of Conley would not have arrived at the claimed
invention. We note that the examiner's belief (answer, pp. 3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007