Appeal No. 2004-2284
Application 09/832,873
for any and all of these variables. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Accordingly, in view of the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, we again
evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole,
giving due consideration to the weight of appellants’ arguments in the brief. See generally,
Oetiker, supra; Piasecki, supra.
We considered above appellants’ arguments with respect to the combined teachings of
Egenes, Riquet and Aktiebolag (brief, pages 21-22), and Davenport and Kriebel ‘653 are not
relied on in such respects. We find no argument which establishes that Davenport does not
provide the teachings relied on by the examiner (see brief, pages 21-22).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Egenes, Riquet,
Aktiebolag, Davenport and Kriebel ‘653 with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed
claims 8 through 12 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
8 A discussion of Aktiebolag and Kriebel ‘653 is not necessary to our decision. See Kronig,
supra.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007