Appeal No. 2000-1516
Application 08/897,337
The appellants argue that their improved softness is
unexpected (brief, page 3). Knight’s teaching, however, that the
release agents have a softening effect on the web (col. 3,
lines 15-19) indicates that the improved softness is an expected
result rather than an unexpected result. “Expected beneficial
results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just
as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness.”
In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397, 187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975);
In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975); In
re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 537, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
For the above reasons we conclude that the method claimed in
the appellants’ claim 1 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7, which both depend directly from claim 1,
recite that the softening agent is, respectively, a phospholipid
and a silicone quaternary.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007