Appeal No. 2003-0715
Application No. 09/873,806
Third, the relied upon evidence is not commensurate in
scope with the claims. For example, the relied upon example
(Resin 4) is limited to a specific crosslinked polyacrylonitrile
in sodium form that is later converted to an acid form with
sulfuric acid and then treated with steam under specific
conditions. By contrast, appealed claim 1 is significantly
broader in scope. In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d
1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(“‘[O]bjective evidence of
nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the
claims.’”)(quoting In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1972)); In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ
805, 808 (CCPA 1979) (“The evidence presented to rebut a prima
facie case of obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the
claims to which it pertains.”).
The appellants also refer (appeal brief, page 6) to Tables
1-2 of the specification, but we find this evidence equally
unavailing for the same reasons.
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner’s rejection on
this ground.
Claims 7 & 8: Ballard, Nagai, & Kubota
As we discussed above, Ballard teaches that the beads may
be cleaned by steam stripping porogens from the beads followed
by washing, which includes treatment with an alcohol. (Column
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007