Appeal No. 1998-1149
Application No. 08/406,946
solvent extraction step. This combination would have been
motivated by
the reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing the
separation and thus recovery of titanium ions from the waste
sulfuric acid solution. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904,
7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).1
We perceive little if any merit or logic in the
appellants’ apparent belief that the combination of Aoki’s
extraction step with Mikami’s extraction step would not have
been expected to yield enhanced separation and recovery. It
is only rational to expect enhanced separation/recovery using
two extraction treatments rather than one. Moreover, this is
evinced by the applied prior art. For example, the paragraph
bridging columns 4 and 5 of Aoki discloses subjecting his
waste liquor to repeated extraction operations (see
1In addition, this obviousness conclusion is reinforced by the
reasonable expectation that enhanced separation of titanium ions from the
waste sulfuric acid solution at a point prior to the diffusive dialysis
treatment would militate against precipitation of titanium oxide particles on
the dialysis membrane in the final stage of Aoki’s diffusion dialysis step,
notwithstanding his preliminary filtration step (e.g., see lines 15-18 in
column 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007