Appeal 2006-3270
Application 10/369,089
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”);
In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)
(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could
then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of
obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809,
811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . . .”). The analysis
supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
1731, 81 USPQ2d at 1389.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness, which case has not been adequately
rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. As shown by the factual finding above,
we determine that Alvarez describes a method of treating an adsorbent
including first heating the absorbent and an anhydrous nitrogen atmosphere
of 250°-425°C and subsequently passing a gas stream comprising a halide
over the absorbent resin. (Col. 8, ll. 19-27). Alvarez discloses the operating
temperature of the gases to be dehydrated (i.e., the second step) occurs at a
temperature below the first step, i.e., 0°-65°C (col. 8, l. 68- col. 9, l. 2).
Alvarez discloses the operating conditions are dependent upon several
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013