Appeal No. 1997-0228
Application No. 08/328,534
within the skill of the art.”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of
a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.”).
With respect to appealed claim 51, FR ‘669 teaches that
krypton and xenon are also suitable rare gases. (Page 4.)
Hence, we are convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found the requisite teaching, motivation, or
suggestion to combine a suitable amount of argon with a suitable
amount of either krypton or xenon, each of which is taught in the
prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the
preservation of oxidizable liquid products), in order to form a
third gaseous composition to be used for the very same purpose.
In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA
1980). Thus, as in Kerkhoven, the idea of combining the two or
more gases “flows logically from their having been individually
taught in the prior art.” Id.
We need not discuss Segall, Bagdigian, and Fath, because the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007