Appeal No. 2004-1644
Application No. 10/071,341
Appellants also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
start with the Allender reference and have no reason to look beyond that
reference. (Rehearing request p. 2).
This argument is not persuasive. When determining the patentability
of a claimed invention which combines known elements, “the question is
whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination.
[Citations omitted].” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist
& Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the
present case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that performing a hydrogenation process on the product from a
dehydrogenation unit would have reduced the undesirable diolefin
byproducts resulting from the dehydrogenation zone and increase the
monoolefinic hydrocarbon, which is the desired product of the
dehydrogenation unit as disclosed by Vora. “For obviousness under § 103,
all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell,
853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007