Appeal No. 1995-4675
Application No. 07/875,452
as here, is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805,
808 (CCPA 1979). Indeed, for all we know based upon the
record before us including the proffered declaration evidence,
the unexpected results shown in the Parks Declarations are not
exhibited by amorphous nylons generally but only by the
specifically tested amorphous nylon “Selar PA.” Thus, the
fatal deficiency of the appellants’ declaration evidence of
nonobviousness is that it fails to show unexpected results for
amorphous nylons as a class in accordance with the here
claimed invention. In re Hostettler, 429 F.2d 464, 466, 166
USPQ 558, 560 (CCPA 1970).
The circumstances recounted above lead us to the ultimate
determination that all the evidence of record, on balance,
weighs most heavily in favor of an obviousness conclusion. We
shall sustain, therefore, the § 103 rejections of claims 1
through 3, 15 and 16 as being unpatentable over Tanner in view
of Deak, of claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable over these
references and further in view of Gibbons and of claims 6
through 14, 17 and 18 as being unpatentable over Tanner, Deak
and Gibbons and further in view of the appellants’
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007