Appeal 2007-0125
Application 10/447,227
the references sought to be 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.”). 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 relevant field to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1732, . 82 USPQ2d at
1389.
V. FACTS, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner’s § § 102(b) and 103 rejections are premised upon
Achinger, as explained by Ueoka, describing either expressly or inherently
the steam distillation, condensation and separation steps recited in claim 1
(Answer 3-11). The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Achinger, as
explained by Ueoka, describes either expressly or inherently the claimed
steam distillation, condensation and separation steps. On this record, we
answer this question in the negative.
As correctly stated by the Appellants (Br. 5):
Aichinger et al's method involves emptying the plant parts,
flushing the plant parts with aqueous alkali metal hydroxide
solution, removing the solution from the plant parts, and
optionally washing the plant parts with water and drying the
plant parts (column 2, lines 23-29). Aichinger et al further
discloses that after removal of the alkali metal hydroxide
solution, alcohols formed during the cleaning are separated
therefrom, such as by phase separation, distillation or stripping,
which can involve the use of steam (column 3, line 28ff). This
is the only disclosure of steam in Aichinger et al. (footnote
omitted.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013