Ex Parte Nawata et al - Page 6

               Appeal Number: 2006-2391                                                                                           
               Application Number: 10/311,513                                                                                     

                      We also agree with the Examiner that the data relied upon by Appellants                                     
               merely shows that compositions comprising resins having a surface area of 0.040                                    
               m2/g however, the examples employed different process parameters for forming                                       
               the compositions and contain several variables that are different than the                                         
               composition of Ishizaki (Answer 6).  In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,                                    
               392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(The Adifference in results@ must be                                     
               established as being between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art.).                               
                      We further agree with the Examiner that the data relied upon by Appellants                                  
               is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention (Answer 6).  See In re                                     
               Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978)                                                     
               (AEstablishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is                                 
               inadequate proof, for 'it is the view of this court that objective evidence of                                     
               non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the                                            
               evidence is offered to support.'.” (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792, 171                                   
               USPQ 294, 294 (CCPA 1971)).  Appellants test only a few compositions, as                                           
               exhibited in the figures.  However, the claims on appeal are much broader.                                         
                      Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over                                       
               Ishizaki and Beal.  In response to this ground of rejection, the Appellants have not                               
               challenged the Examiner's interpretation of the Beal reference (Br 7).  Appellants                                 
               have also not presented arguments regarding the Examiner’s motivation for                                          
               combining the teachings of Ishizaki and Beal.  Consequently, it appears as if                                      
               Appellants are relying on the arguments presented in the discussion of the rejection                               
               of claims 1 and 3 above.  In support of the stated rejections, the Examiner has                                    
               presented factual determinations regarding the suitability of combining the                                        
               teachings of Ishizaki and Beal.  (See Answer 4-5).  Thus, for the reasons set forth                                



                                                                6                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013