Appeal No. 2005-1459
Application No. 09/950,612
alumina be combined (Brief, page 12). Appellants further argue
that improved results are shown for this combination in Table 1
on page 9 of the specification (id.).
These arguments are not persuasive. First we note that the
combination of ceria and alumina required by claim 2 on appeal is
disclosed by Robinson at col. 15, ll. 50-54, with only seven
possible materials that can be combined (our comments also apply
to claim 5 on appeal directed to a combination of alumina and
silica). Accordingly, the number of possible combinations
disclosed by Robinson is so few that the combination of ceria and
alumina would have been put in the possession of the public and
thus be a bar under section 102(b). See In re Sivaramakrishnan,
673 F.2d 1383, 1384, 213 USPQ 441, 442 (CCPA 1982); and In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978). It is
well settled that anticipation is the epitome or ultimate of
obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982). A showing of unexpected results is not
appropriate to overcome a rejection for anticipation. See In re
Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302-03, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Even assuming arguendo that claim 2 (and claim 5) is obvious,
appellants have not met their burden of explaining why the
results in Table 1 on page 9 of the specification are considered
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007