Appeal 2007-1669
Application 10/434,038
of non-aqueous waste streams for the removal of aldehydes and ketones.
(Answer 5).
Appellants contend that the question “central to the rejection of the
claims is whether or not the speculation in the ‘094 reference [Roof] rises to
the level of a fair disclosure that can be utilized to support an obviousness
rejection.” Appellants assert that there are no details provided in Roof as to
how to actually use the disclosed scavenger compounds in a non-aqueous
system (Br. 6). Appellants further contend that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of the references (Br. 7).
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive. The Roof reference
establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that the chemical reaction that takes place between an aldehyde or
ketone with a polyamide or nitrogen containing compound would occur in
both an aqueous system and a non-aqueous system. “For obviousness under
§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants have not provided evidence with technical reasoning that
establishes a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably
expected that in both an aqueous system and a non-aqueous system the
chemical reaction that takes place between an aldehyde or ketone with a
polyamide or nitrogen containing compound would occur.
Regarding the rejection of claims 7 and 15, Appellants contend that
the teachings of Kurian, Roof, and Lashley did not provide a teaching,
suggestion or motivation to arrive at the present invention. Appellants also
contend that the only motivation to combine the teachings of the references
is based upon hindsight by the Examiner (Br. 9). We do not agree. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013