Appeal 2007-2602
Application 10/797,975
it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness is rebutted by a showing of unexpected results. (Br. 10.)
Appellants argue the comparative data in the Specification shows a three-
fold improvement in biocidal metal ion release in the middle and sides of the
article over a biocidal article that is not thermoformed. Id.
It is well settled that “[e]xpected beneficial results are evidence of
obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence
of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 537, 152 USPQ
602, 604 (CCPA 1967). In the present case, Ando provides evidence that
upon heating, the low melting component of the resins spreads to cause more
zeolite particles to be exposed, which yields higher antibacterial activity on
the substrate. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the result of increased
antibacterial activity would be expected upon heating of the polymer or
plastic article, as set forth in Ando.
The obviousness rejection is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The obviousness rejection is 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).
AFFIRMED
tdl/ce
CANTOR COLBURN, LLP
55 GRIFFIN ROAD SOUTH
BLOOMFIELD CT 06002
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013