Appeal No. 1996-2626
Application No. 08/286,046
static agent. In our opinion, this does not represent a comparison of the claimed product
with the closest prior art, which disclose and suggest the use of anti-static agents in this
type of polymeric product. To the extent that appellant would argue that the evidence of
Tables 4-8 serves to compare the anti-static agent with other anti-static agents, we note
that the only other anti-static agent for which data is presented is identified only as "Anti-
static agent #2 is made by BASF Corp. Wyandotte Michigan and is identified with the
code ES-7776" (Specification, pages 14-18). This limited information provides no
indication as to the nature of this anti-static agent and thus precludes the use of this data to
compare the claimed anti-static agents with those of the prior art relied upon by the
examiner. Thus, we do not find the evidence sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness established on the present record.
When all of the evidence and argument are considered anew, we find, on balance,
the evidence and argument presented by the appellant, taken as a whole, fail to outweigh
the evidence of obviousness established by the prior art. See Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg.
Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Beattie, 974
F.2d 1309, 1313, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Thus, on the record before us, the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, which appellant has not overcome
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007