Appeal 2007-1174
Application 11/001244
(8) listed above). Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in this
art would have been motivated to substitute the VAC thickener of Gleave for
the conventional PMM of Nishino with the expectation of beneficial results,
and with the ordinary skill to modify the molecular weight and amount to
achieve the desired thickening properties. Additionally, we determine that
one of ordinary skill in this art would also have been led to use the improved
thickener (VAC) of Gleave in combination with the PMM thickener
disclosed by Nishino, rather than as a substitute (see factual finding (4) listed
above).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Appellant has argued that
unexpected results have been demonstrated (Br. 16-17). Therefore, we
begin anew and consider the evidence for and against obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
We do not find Appellant’s evidence persuasive for the following
reasons. Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness, just as
unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness. See In re
Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397, 187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975); In re
Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975). Here Gleave
teaches that improved results will occur by substituting the VAC thickener
for a conventional PMM thickener (see factual finding (7) listed above).
Additionally, Appellant’s evidence of nonobviousness that is not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013