Appeal No. 2006-2694
Application No. 09/910,968
(Answer 3.) The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered it obvious “to have modified the process of Arhancet by
recycling the inhibitor back to the distillation column as taught by Higgins
because the recycling step would cut down the cost of fresh inhibitor.”
(Answer 3.)
The Examiner states, “[r]egarding claim 9, Arhancet does not
specifically disclose that the distillation is a continuous operation.”
(Answer 4.) The Examiner asserts, however, that one of ordinary skill
would have considered it obvious “to have modified the process of Arhancet
by operating the process continuously because Higgins teaches that similar
results would be expected when the distillation is operated in either
continuous or batch mode.” (Answer 4.)
The Examiner also concedes that “Arhancet does not specifically
disclose that the inhibitor is a blend of two nitroxyls” as recited in claim 18.
(Answer 4.) The Examiner urges, however, that because each of Arhancet’s
nitroxyl inhibitors “has an equivalent function,” one of ordinary skill would
have considered it obvious “to have modified the process of Arhancet by
using a blend of two nitroxyls because it would be expected that the mixture
of the two nitroxyls would have similar results as a single nitroxyl inhibitor.”
(Answer 4.)
The Examiner may establish a prima facie case of obviousness based
on multiple references “only by showing some objective teaching in the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art would lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013