Appeal 2006-2507
Application 10/106,473
dispersion and a carbon black dispersion. See Answer 8. Accordingly, we
are in agreement with the Examiner’s finding of prima facie obviousness.
Appellants have not offered any evidence or arguments which establish an
unexpected advantage in, nor have they shown that the prior art teaches
away from, using two separate dispersions. Cf. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[W]hen the PTO shows
sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art
are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”);
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The rejection of claim 39 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
clj
Richard M. Klein
Fay, Sharpe, Fagan, Minnich & McKee, LLP
1100 Superior Avenue
Seventh Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114-2579
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: November 3, 2007