Appeal No. 2003-0052
Application No. 09/782,268
Fifolt teaches a continuous process for preparing the here
claimed product by passing F2 with CO2 through a bed of cesium
fluoride catalyst. Patentee is silent regarding the pressure at
which his method is practiced. Thus, the sole distinction of
claim 1 over Fifolt is the requirement that the claimed process
be conducted at a pressure above atmospheric pressure.
It is conceivable that one having ordinary skill in this art
would have effectuated the flow of gases through patentee’s
continuous reactor by applying pressure upstream thereof or by
applying vacuum downstream thereof. For the reasons (e.g., as a
convenient mechanism by which to achieve patentee’s desired gas
flow) expressed in the answer, the artisan would have been
motivated to effectuate Fifolt’s method by applying upstream
pressure to the reactor. Moreover, the foregoing considerations
reveal that the artisan would have recognized pressure as a
result effective parameter in the method of Fifolt, and it is
well established that the determination of workable or even
optimum values for such a parameter would have been obvious to
one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 19990); In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 21 (Fed. Cir. 1980); In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007