Appeal No. 2004-1877
Application No. 09/178,512
1986). We concur with the examiner that, based upon the teaching
of Sandström and the state of the prior art, it would appear that
the increase in yield achieved at low concentrations of alkali
would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Just as unexpected results are evidence of nonobviousness,
expected results are evidence of obviousness. In re Skoll,
523 F.2d 1392, 1397, 187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975). Also, we
agree with the examiner that the Declaration's use of an alkali
concentration of 41.9 g/L is not a valid representation of
Chasse, who fairly teaches concentrations as low as 10 g/L.
Also, the examiner correctly points out that the declaration data
is not truly comparative with respect to alkali concentration.
For some unexplained reason, Profile D, representative of the
prior art, is conducted at a higher cooking temperature than
Profiles E and F of the present invention. In addition, the
examiner lodges valid criticism that, inasmuch as Profiles E and
F are at cooking temperatures of 146.9°-149°C, the evidence is
not commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by
the appealed claims which encompass temperatures greater than
140°C (claim 1) and 140°-180°C (claim 18). Indeed, appealed
claim 1 places no upper limit on the cooking temperature.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007