Appeal No. 94-4081
Application 07/750,031
1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(“For obviousness under § 103, all
that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”).
Appellants argue that the claimed invention “teaches away”
from Ma since it uses a different type of displacement of
particles (main brief, page 40). However, as previously
discussed, there is no difference in the language of claim 42
that distinguishes between the “displaced” ions of appellants’
method and the “replacement” of ions as disclosed by Ma at page
723.
Based on the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subject
matter of claims 42-45 would have been prima facie obvious based
on the teachings found in Ma. Appellants have not presented
objective evidence of nonobviousness, on this record, which would
serve to rebut the prima facie case. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 42-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ma is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007