Appeal No. 2002-0195
Application No. 09/174,977
insufficient to take the place of evidence or expert testimony).
Furthermore, we note that many compositions of Nakamura use
activated charcoal as an adsorbent and do not include calcium
chloride (see Table 1).
We note that Nakamura is silent with regard to the moisture
content of the deliquescent component (Answer, page 3). Therefore
we determine that it would have been reasonable to one of ordinary
skill in this art that the moisture level was 0%, or as low as
commercially possible. As stated by the examiner, one of ordinary
skill in this art would have desired as low a water content as
possible when using a deliquescent component to adsorb water from
the environment (id.).
As discussed above, we determined that Nakamura uses the
deliquescent material for the same purpose as stated in appellants’
claims for the “dry water-attracting means”. However, regardless
of the purpose, the use of such materials is disclosed and
exemplified by Nakamura.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, and
the decision in Appeal No. 1995-3770, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the record,
including due consideration of appellants’ arguments, we determine
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007