Appeal No. 2005-1083
Application No. 09/950,642
introduced into the dispensing liquid. Similarly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
adding more dispersing aid would correspondingly increase
dispersibility of the metal fibers since the purpose of the
dispersing aid is to promote dispersion of the metal fibers.
See, e.g., In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA
1975)(“[e}xpected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness
of a claimed invention just as unexpected beneficial results are
evidence of unobviousness”).
Finally, we find that the declaration does not provide a
comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We find Battista to be the closest
prior art since it teaches the claimed mixing sequence as
indicated supra.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007