Appeal No. 1995-4675
Application No. 07/875,452
parameters such as the “lbs/ream” values defined by, for
example, dependent claim 6 are recognized in the art as result
effective variables; and it is well established that the
determination of workable or even optimum values for such
parameters would have been obvious to those with ordinary
skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ
215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
For the above stated reasons, we conclude that a prima
facie case of obviousness exists with respect to each of the
examiner’s § 103 rejections of the appealed claims which are
based upon the Tanner reference.
As evidence of nonobviousness, the appellants rely upon
the 1993 Parks Declaration (Table 1 of which is derived from
Table 3 of the specification; see page 17 of the Brief) and
the 1994 Parks Declaration. The appellants consider these
declarations to show that the tested inventive container
structure having an amorphous nylon layer exhibited unexpected
results via a surprisingly favorable comparison with a typical
prior art container structure having an EVOH layer. According
to the examiner, these declarations fail to show unexpected
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007