Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
16, 173 USPQ 560, 562-63 (CCPA 1972); see also In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness
under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success”
(citations omitted)).
We are not persuaded Appellants’ contentions successfully rebut the
prima facie case in each ground of rejection. We agree with the Examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references
directed to compositions containing the same and similar ingredients for the
same purpose of bleaching fabrics to take advantage of the properties taught
therein for the catalyst and the lipoxidase enzymes in treating the same stains
from the same sources, even if that is not Appellants’ purpose in combining
the ingredients in such a composition. See In re Kronig,
539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425, 428, (CCPA 1976) (the reference
provides “ample motivation to add water to increase product yields, and we
do not view the rejection as deficient merely because appellants allege a
different advantage resulting from the addition of water. Obviousness under
35 USC 103 does not require absolute predictability, . . . and it is sufficient
here that [the reference] clearly [suggests] doing what appellants have done”
(citations omitted)); see also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1429-30,
40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir, 1996), citing In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Indeed, such
disclosure in the references would not have discouraged one of ordinary skill
in this art from combining the same and thence to the claimed compositions.
See, e.g., Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-89, 78 USPQ2d at 1334-38 (“A reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013