Ex Parte LAINE et al - Page 10


               Appeal No. 2001-0065                                                                                                   
               Application 09/048,289                                                                                                 
               oxygen reactor as sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.  To quote                                
               the cited article, which includes as an author co-inventor Pikka himself:                                              
                       “The screenroom location, among others, is a question of the process economy                                   
                       and layout of the mill”.  S. Martikainen, R. Lopponen, O. Pikka, and J. Vehmaa                                 
                       “Mill Scale Experiences of a New Screenroom and Oxygen Stage Application”,                                     
                       page 248, column 1, lines 32-35, 1998 International Pulp Bleaching Conference,                                 
                       June 1-5, 1998 Helsinki, Finland.                                                                              
                       Furthermore, and importantly, there is simply no quantitative evidence of these                                
               economic savings in the form of a declaration containing factual data.                                                 
                       The Appellants have argued that there is no basis upon which one would go                                      
               against the teachings of Ahs which require the additional reactor, citing Uarco v. Moore                               
               Business Forms, 440 F.2d 580, 585, 169 USPQ 263, 267 (7th Cir. 1971); In re Fleissner,                                 
               264 F.2d 897, 121 USPQ 270 (CCPA 1966); In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556                                         
               (CCPA 1966), and Ex Parte Thomson, 184 USPQ 558, 559 (Bd. App 1974).  All of                                           
               those cases are easily distinguishable on their facts.                                                                 
                       In Uarco, the references were not readily combinable, and both references had                                  
               portions which had to be discarded.  In Fleissner, the CCPA noted that the manner of                                   
               operation of the invention was “altogether foreign to the teachings of the reference                                   
               patent”.  Fleissner, 264 F.2d at 900, 121 USPQ at 271-2.  In the present instance, the                                 
               Ahs and Mannbro references are clearly related, easily combined, and the omission of a                                 
               separate oxygen delignification unit on the branch line does not compare to a “manner                                  
               of operation altogether foreign” to the teachings of the art as a whole.                                               
                       In Edge, the CCPA did note that it may be unobvious to remove an element while                                 
               retaining its function, but also that there was no suggestion to bond a thin layer of metal                            
               directly to a card and obscuring a printed indicia thereon.  In the present instance, there                            


                                                                 10                                                                   



Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007