Appeal No. 2003-2012
Application No. 09/981,454
appellants that expected results, as here, are evidence of
obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of
nonobviousness. Viewed from this perspective, the advantage
referred to by the appellants reinforces rather than undermines a
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1396-
97, 187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975) and In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947,
950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).
Concerning the Section 103 rejection based on the Sennewald
references in view of Calcagno, the appellants reiterate the
unpersuasive arguments discussed above. In addition, the
appellants point out that the Calcagno process involves a liquid-
phase system and that “feeding oxygen directly to a liquid[-
]phase system would be an inherently safer system because of the
heat transferability of the liquid” (brief, page 7). With these
points in mind, the appellants then argue that “there is no
apparent motivation to combine liquid-phase art [i.e., Calcagno]
with the gas-phase art of Sennewald” (brief, page 7). We cannot
agree. The proposed combination of the Sennewald and Calcagno
teachings has merit, at least in the sense that Calcagno evinces
that separate versus mixed reactant feeds were known alternatives
in prior art vinyl acetate processes and thereby reinforces the
examiner’s obviousness conclusion based on the Sennewald
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007