Appeal No. 2006-0363
Application No. 09/022,834
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of claimed
invention to combine Sehested et al.’s teaching into Kashiwase’s
method to stabilize ozone as taught by Sehested et al. (Page 4 of
answer, fifth paragraph).
Appellants contend that “none of the cited art suggests
that stabilization of ozone would lead to increased cleaning
efficiency as observed by the present inventors” (page 3 of
principal brief, first full sentence). However, inasmuch as
Sehested evidences that it was known in the art that appellants’
scavenger stabilizes the decomposition of ozone in solution, we
are satisfied that one of ordinary skill would have had a
reasonable expectation that adding a scavenger to the ozone
solution of Kashiwase would increase the cleaning efficiency. It
is well settled that all that is required for a finding of
obviousness under Section 103 is a reasonable expectation of
success, not absolute predictability. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903-04; 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants point to specification data which demonstrates
that the claimed method provides an enhanced cleaning efficiency
relative to ozone solutions that do not contain the scavenger
additive. However, appellants have not established on this
record that the results would have been truly unexpected to one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007