Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
is an unambiguous teaching in Mannbro to recycle the shives without further treatment
to the fiber line. Finally, Thomson is distinguishable as the combination of Ahs and
Mannbro in no way acts to “destroy” the Ahs apparatus for its intended purpose.
Rather, Ahs is modified, but still accomplishes its goal of refining pulp while keeping a
relatively stable kappa number (Ahs, column 2, lines 7-12).
We note that the test for obviousness involves consideration of what the
combined teachings, as opposed to the individual teachings (and, by extension,
components thereof), of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The art as a whole
would instruct one of skill in the art to recycle shives prior to delignification, as many
times as necessary with appropriate screening and washing, which differs significantly
from the Appellants’ interpretation of the Ahs reference alone. While Ahs may not teach
the elimination of the reactor, we do not agree that their removal acts to destroy Ahs, as
the overall function of Ahs remains intact.
Having determined that a proper prima facie case of obviousness has been
made out by the Examiner by the combination of the Ahs and Mannbro references, we
now turn to consider the rebuttal evidence in the record and reweigh the entire matter,
as required by In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 688 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
The Appellants note in the Appeal Brief, at page 6, line 25 to page 8, line 16 that
they have placed evidence in the record that the invention has been commercialized
and recognized in the art. A review of that evidence shows that, in sum:
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007