Appeal 2006-2931
Application 10/447,009
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 at 1185, 197 USPQ at 227.
Appellants have tested only a few compositions, as exhibited in the record.
However, the claims on appeal are much broader.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, the Examiner has met the required burden in
this case, and Appellants have failed to meet their burden to establish that
the claimed characteristics are not possessed by the Eknoian reference.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection is supported by a legally sufficient basis for
holding that the claimed subject matter would have been anticipated within
the meaning of §102(e) or, in the alternative, obvious within the meaning of
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
clj
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Patent Department
7201 Hamilton Boulevard
Allentown, PA 18195-1501
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013