A patent application contains a claim describing a three step process for extracting a valuable chemical form a plant. The claim describes the use of two extracting chemicals with a hot extraction and precipitation step.
The examiner rejects the claim based on section 103(b) pointing to three patents, each describing one step of the three step process. The second patent mentions the extracting chemicals. The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the three steps found in the prior art to construct the claim.
The applicant responded by pointing to the results of experiments in the Appendix of the Specification that demonstrate the high efficiency achieved by this process. Could this response be effective? Explain.