Appeal No. 2003-0052
Application No. 09/782,268
Under these circumstances, we share the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been prima facie obvious for an
artisan to practice the method of Fifolt at pressures of the type
here claimed (e.g., see appealed claims 1-4 and 7) which are
above atmospheric pressure. In support of his contrary view, the
appellant states that, “[i]n Example 1 (col. 2, lines 46-57), the
effluent from the reaction was trapped in a metal trap cooled
with dry ice and ethanol” and that “[t]his is considered vacuum
conditions” (brief, page 2). However, the appellant has
proffered no evidence in support of his last quoted conclusion.
Further, as noted by the examiner in his answer, the conditions
in patentee’s trap would not create a vacuum in the reaction zone
unless a closed system were utilized and the Fifolt reference
contains no disclosure of a closed system. For these reasons, we
discern no persuasive merit in the appellant’s argument that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
As further support for his nonobviousness position, the
appellant refers to data in the subject specification which is
characterized as showing unexpected results that rebut a prima
facie case of obviousness. This data appears on specification
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007