Appeal No. 2006-2694
Application No. 09/910,968
of some good reason for doing so in the light of the increased cost it would
entail. No such good reason is provided by Arhancet.” (Br. 8.)
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. Appellants have
provided no evidence showing that using a mixture of two nitroxyl
compounds is more costly than using a single nitroxyl compound.
Moreover, as pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 6):
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of
which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same
purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be
used for the very same purpose. . . . [T]he idea of combining
them flows logically from their having been individually taught
in the prior art.
In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)
(citations omitted).
Thus, as discussed supra, Arhancet discloses that a plurality of
nitroxyl compounds is useful in inhibiting the polymerization of styrene
monomers in purification processes. (Col. 2, ll. 3-7 and 28-52.) One of
ordinary skill would therefore have recognized that a combination of two of
Arhancet’s nitroxyl inhibitors would effectively inhibit polymerization in a
styrene purification process. We agree with the Examiner that claim 18
would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
SUMMARY
Because the prior art suggests the process recited in claims 1, 2, 9, and
18, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims. Claims
17 and 19-26 fall with claims 1, 2, 9, and 18.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013