Appeal No. 1998-1226
Application No. 08/420,330
that “Tennent makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of
fibrils” useful in elastomer composites (Brief, page 11).
This argument is not well taken since, as also discussed
above, Tennent does teach amounts of the fibrils, although not
numerical amounts (see col. 8, ll. 1-14).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has presented a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
reference evidence. Appellants state that they have provided
evidence of “surprising and unobvious results” (Brief, page
21). However, appellants have not explained why these results
involve comparisons with the closest prior art, why they are
commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter, and why
these results would have been truly unexpected. Appellants
rely on the evidence on pages 5-6 of the specification but no
specific comparisons or results have been disclosed. Based on
the totality of the record, giving due consideration to
appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims
49 through 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tennent in view of Geus and Tomoda is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007