Appeal No. 1998-1278
Application No. 08/603,186
The use of an aqueous hindered amine
absorbent solution was found by the
Appellants to unexpectedly substantially
reduce the corrosion of carbon steel equipment,
which is caused by the presence of oxygen in the
combustion gas, during the CO2 removal process.
The addition of cupric carbonate to the hindered
amine absorbent solution further decreased the
corrosion of carbon steel in such a system.
Evidence of such unexpected results are seen
in Table 1 of the present invention.
It is incumbent upon the appellants to establish that the
claimed subject matter imparts unexpected results. See, e.g., In
re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972) (the
burden of showing unexpect results rests on the party who assert
them). However, we hold that the showing in Table 1 referred to
by the appellants is not persuasive of non-obviousness of the
claimed invention for at least two reasons.
First, the showing is not directed to a comparison between
the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art, Pearce and
Sartori. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that
Pearce is the closest prior art since it teaches using a
combination of copper carbonate (corrosion inhibitor) and an
absorbent solution as required by the claims on appeal. We find
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007