Appeal No. 1996-3367 Page 6
Application No. 08/480,554
Appellants have not furnished any objective evidence to
support the unsubstantiated arguments suggesting the catalyst
component ratio would change as a result of corrosion (brief,
page 7). We are in agreement with the examiner (answer, pages
6 and 7) that the unsupported allegations of appellants to the
contrary are entitled to little weight and are not persuasive
absent convincing objective evidence establishing that the
practice of the process as exemplified in Example 2 of Böttger
would have necessarily resulted in a catalyst component ratio
outside of that claimed herein.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 5-7), in effect, that
Böttger teaches a higher ratio of the catalyst components than
that claimed herein; hence, Böttger teaches away from the
claimed process. This line of argument is not well taken
since the disclosure of Böttger is not limited to the
preferred embodiments thereof (see, e.g., Examples 4-6 of the
Offenlegungsschrift) but also includes the so called
that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529,
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007