Appeal No. 2006-0363
Application No. 09/022,834
of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in light of the
Sehested disclosure. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231
USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077,
1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). Indeed, it would seem that
the results reported in the present specification would have been
expected by one of ordinary skill in the art, and expected
results are evidence of obviousness. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947,
950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).
Appellants also maintain “without some recognition that the
rate of ozone decomposition compared to the rate of cleaning is
such that ozone decomposition detrimentally affects cleaning
efficiency, there can be no motivation to stabilize the ozone
through the addition of a scavenger nor any reasonable degree of
assurance that doing so would have the kind of beneficial effect
observed by the applicants” (page 4 of principal brief,
penultimate paragraph). However, we are confident that one of
ordinary skill in the art, knowledgeable that the addition of a
scavenger inhibits the decomposition of ozone in water, would
have found it obvious to add it to the cleaning solution of
Kashiwase in order to ensure efficiency. Moreover, we find that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily observed the
decomposition of ozone in the cleaning solution of Kashiwase and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007