Appeal No. 2000-0018
Application No. 08/860,941
appellants, namely, white residue formation when a small size
zeolite is used in a detergent composition (brief, pages 5 and
7-9). This argument is not persuasive because to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, references need not be
combined for the purpose of solving the problem solved by the
appellants. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919
F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en
banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991); In re Lintner, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Use of
Kasturi’s surfactant in Watson’s detergent composition would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art for the reason given above.
The appellants argue that Watson, Kasturi and Chapple are
not combinable because they are not directed toward the same
problem (brief, pages 5 and 8-9). Watson and Kasturi would
have been combined by one of ordinary skill in the art for the
reason given above, and Chapple was relied upon by the
examiner merely for a disclosure of a property of zeolite MAP.
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007