Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
in claims 54, 55, and 61. Thus, the examiner relies on the
disclosures of Ayers, Yuki, and Determann, in addition to the
disclosures of Hagel and Mike, for ground cellulose triphenyl
carbamate particles having the claimed size. We need not
consider the disclosures of Ayers, Yuki, and Determann since
Hagel teaches or at least would have suggested ground cellulose
triphenyl carbamate particles having the claimed size as
indicated supra. Hence, we conclude that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the
subject matter of claims 54, 55, and 61.
The appellants rely on the Rule 132 declaration executed by
Akito Ichida and Hirokazu Ikeda to show that the claimed subject
matter imparts unexpected results, thereby rebutting the prima
facie case established by the examiner. Having carefully
reviewed the showing in the declaration, we are not persuaded
that the appellants have carried their burden of showing
unexpected results. See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173
USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972).
We initially observe that the appellants rely on a
comparative showing between separating agent 1c supposedly
corresponding to the ground cellulose triphenyl carbamate
described in Hagel and separating agent 3c corresponding to the
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007