Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
we can find nothing wrong with appellant’s effort to convert
his invention and Lehrer to equivalent molar values.
Appellant’s calculations and our independent calculations
verify that the mass values set forth in Lehrer cannot satisfy
the composition recitations as set forth in the appealed
claims. Thus, the examiner’s position that Lehrer teaches the
percentages recited in the claims is clearly erroneous.
We also agree with appellant that there is no support
for the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention is an
obvious optimization of the Lehrer teachings. Since the
claimed amounts fall outside of the ranges suggested by
Lehrer, the claimed invention is different from Lehrer rather
than an optimization of Lehrer. An optimization of Lehrer
would be to select the best values within the ranges taught by
Lehrer. Lehrer teaches away from the values claimed by
appellant. Therefore, the examiner has not made a prima facie
case of the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the
appealed claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of the claims as being obvious over the teachings of Lehrer.
In conclusion, we have not sustained either of the
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007