Appeal No. 1998-3054
Application 08/770,888
dye into a high viscosity fluid stream such as a polymer melt”
(col. 1, lines 9-12).
The admitted prior art relied upon by the examiner is the
teaching that it was known in the art to inject water droplets
into a flow of superheated steam to desuperheat the steam
(answer, page 4).
The examiner argues that King’s statement that his
apparatus is used for mixing two or more fluids encompasses
use of the apparatus for mixing steam and water, and that
because the apparatus is useful for desuperheating steam, it
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to use it for this purpose (answer, pages 4-5).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the
prior art could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007