Appeal No. 96-0359
Serial No. 08/083,866
Bailey does not suggest the claimed products because Bailey does not provide flow ratio data is not
evidence.
As to claim 6, appellants argue Bailey does not disclose or suggest the specific blend MFR
range of 80-150 (Brief page 3). For the reasons supra, we find the examiner had a reasonable basis
for believing the blend MFR range of "about 80 to 150" recited in claim 6 fell within Bailey's generic
disclosure (Answer page 7). We also note that appellants have not shown criticality in the claimed
blend MFR range of "about 80 to 150" by evidence of unexpected results. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d
257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976). Therefore, based on this record, we are constrained to
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Bailey.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bailey is sustained.
2. Rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee
At the outset, we note that appellants state claims 6 and 13 should be considered independently
(Brief page 3). Accordingly, dependent claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 will stand or fall with independent claim
14. Claims 6 and 13 will stand or fall individually.
We have carefully reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for patentability, as well as the
affidavit evidence relied upon in support thereof. However, we concur with the examiner that the
claimed subject would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103
Page 12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007