Woods loses on obviousness in silver/wound dressing case

From Ex parte Woods


We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10-11) that the references need not
recognize the problem solved by Appellant. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427,
1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant
has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from
following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability
when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”)


AND

Moreover, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success, not an
absolute predictability of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904
(Fed. Cir. 1988).