Appeal No. 2006-2247
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,554 and 90/006,894
1 which recites an amount for the catalyst of “from 0.1 to 10% by weight
2 of...molybdic acid” would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
3 the art because the prior art range and the claimed range overlap. In re Peterson,
4 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This is
5 because “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is
6 generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of
7 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson,
8 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
9 The teachings of Watts, Greenspan, Hopkins, and Willard, which were cited
10 to establish that commercially available hydrogen peroxide solutions have water
11 contents greater than 25%, are unnecessary to establish the obviousness of
12 appealed claims 1 and 5. (Examiner’s Answer at 4.) Indeed, the patent owner
13 states that the examiner’s finding with respect to these references “is irrelevant to
14 the BASF arguments against the claim rejections...” (Appeal Brief at 8-9, n. 2.)
15 Therefore, we do not have to discuss them.
16 The patent owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
17 not have combined the references because Witman teaches away from the claimed
18 invention. (Appeal Brief at 8-9.) Specifically, the patent owner urges that, with
19 respect to the aqueous type of process, Witman teaches that the N-oxide is
20 “somewhat unstable” and therefore requires addition of large quantities of
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007