Appeal No. 96-1615
Application 08/249,650
ignore the functional limitations of the claims on appeal in
their consideration within prior art rejections either. The
range of transmittance in Figure 4 of Martin is from 400 to
700 nm, whereas the spectrally wider high transmittance range
of claim 1 is from 400 to 770 nms. This 300 nanometer range
of Figure 4 of Martin has been extended by 70 nanometers
which, as appellants assert at the top of page 10 of the
principal brief on appeal, results in a 25% increase. The
examiner has not explained to us how this is an inherent
property within Martin within 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and has
not provided a basis or evidence or rationale to justify how
this extension would have been obvious to the artisan within
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In any event, the weight of the evidence provided by the
two declarations confirms the teachings of appellants’ own
specification as well as providing comparisons with the best
available prior art, Martin. Thus, we find ourselves in
general agreement with the conclusion reached by declarant
Parham at paragraph 18 of the second declaration filed on
April 29, 1994 that Martin "does not show at least about 90%
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007