Appeal No. 95-2742
Application 08/006,411
patentable over the same prior art applied to said product-by
process claim. See, e.g., Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 271, 191 USPQ at
103-04.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of
the record before us, we have weighed the evidence of
obviousness found in Blyum and Vanlautem with appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that by a preponderance of the evidence the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 9 through 11 as a
whole would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR ' 1.136(a).
Affirmed-in-Part
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007