Appeal No. 97-1761 Page 9
Application No. 08/380,223
While the combined teachings of the applied prior art may
have made the subject matter of claims 16 through 19, 23 and
24 prima facie obvious, it is our opinion that Pruitt's
declaration is sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness. As stated in In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 706
n. 8, 222 USPQ 191, 197 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 1984), "A proper
showing of unexpected results will rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Fenn, 639 F.2d 762, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA
1981); In re Murch, 464 F.2d 1051, 175 USPQ 89 (CCPA 1972)."
Furthermore, when the appellants demonstrate substantially
improved results, as the appellants did here, and state that
the results were unexpected, this suffices to establish
unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
See In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed.
Cir. 1995). The examiner has not provided any persuasive
basis to question the comparative data and assertion that the
demonstrated results were unexpected. Thus, we are persuaded
that the examiner's determination that the evidence contained
in the declaration was insufficient to rebut the examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness was erroneous.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007