Appeal No. 1996-3977
Application 08/232,627
1438-41 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). We point out that we would agree with the
examiner that if the radiation hardened, aluminum-doped zinc oxide of Cordaro was a low absorptance
pigment and a low emittance material, the combined teachings of the references would, prima facie,
result in the coating mixture specified in claim 1 (answer, page 13). However, the examiner has not
advanced any evidence or scientific reasoning on the record that this is indeed so.
We affirm the ground of rejection of claim 16 under § 103 as being obvious over the combined
teachings of Shai and Cordaro for the same reasons that we affirmed the ground of rejection of this
claim above under § 102(b) as anticipated by Shai, because evidence of a lack of novelty of the
claimed invention is, of course, “the ultimate of obviousness.” In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
In summary, we have affirmed the ground of rejection of claims 16 and 19 under § 102(b) and
the ground of rejection under § 103 with respect to claim 16, and reversed the ground of rejection of
claims 1 through 13 under § 112, first paragraph, and the ground of rejection under § 103 with
respect to claims 1 through 15, 17, 18 and 20.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007