Appeal No. 1997-3354 Page 7
Application No. 08/469,809
including non-preferred embodiments); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568,
1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 2187 (1987)(In determining obviousness,
a prior patent must be considered in its entirety). Here, the reference describes using all the ingredients
claimed. As to the optimization of results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of
result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there
is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In
re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). Note also In re Woodruff, 919
F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Appellant also points out that the composition of Brumbaugh is a light-duty dishwashing
detergent whereas the claimed invention is an aqueous alkaline cleaner composition for removing greasy
soil containing lime-soaps from hard quarry or ceramic tile surfaces (Brief, pages 6 and 7). Appellant
then argues that there is no suggestion or motivation in the Brumbaugh reference to prepare an aqueous
alkaline cleaning composition for the purpose set forth in the claim (Brief, page 8). While Brumbaugh is
motivated to make the cleaning composition for a somewhat different purpose, the reason, suggestion
or motivation for preparing the composition need not be the same in order to establish obviousness. In
re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir, 1996). Furthermore, we note
that claim 13 is directed to a composition. Whether the composition is used to clean dishes or tiles, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007