Appeal No. 1996-0858 Page 13
Application No. 08/117,648
re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-56, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA
1977). Appellants have not shown that the claimed product
differs from the prior art product in any patentably
significant way.
From the above, we conclude that the admitted prior art
product anticipates the claimed product under 35 U.S.C. § 102
and/or would have rendered the claimed product prima facie
obvious to a skilled artisan under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants' arguments, of record, have been considered
but are not found convincing for reasons expressed above. In
addition, with respect to the § 103 alternative rejection, we
do not find example 1 of the specification to be commensurate
in scope with the claimed product for the reasons set forth
above. Accordingly, we cannot subscribe to appellant's
assertion that convincing evidence of unexpected results has
been presented.
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further or continuing prosecution, the
examiner and appellants should determine the patentability of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007