Appeal No. 95-2022
Application No. 08/063,056
overcome by a showing of unexpectedly superior results, which are
relevant only to an obviousness rejection. In re Malagari,
499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Here, we
find no limitation in the claims serving to distinguish
appellants' product from the product described by Forss, EXAMPLE
10, and it is axiomatic that appellants cannot patent subject
matter which is old.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 7 through 9, 27 through
30, 33, 34, 36 and 37, these fall together with independent
claims 31 and 32 because appellants do not group or argue them
separately. See the Appeal Brief, section V.
We next consider claims 10, 12, 13 and 15, which appellants
argue separately (Appeal Brief, page 5, second full paragraph).
We find that the examiner established a prima facie case of
anticipation of these claims in view of the description in Forss,
column 12, lines 37 through 53. Note particularly the disclosure
of an adhesive prepared by mixing evaporated black liquor with
phenolic resin, followed by the workup described in column 12,
lines 42 through 53.
We are mindful that the adhesive composition of Forss,
EXAMPLE 10, does not meet "requirements set by the Finnish
standards" (Forss, column 14, lines 45 through 65). This does
not, however, detract from the anticipatory effect of Forss with
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007