Ex parte SCHAUBER - Page 8

                 Appeal No. 1997-0433                                                                                                              
                 Application 08/230,582                                                                                                            

                 more than provide unsupported allegations of a difference in the amount of residual styrenic monomer                              
                 remaining in the viscosity index improving copolymer solutions prepared as taught in Suzuki. In re                                
                 Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185,                                         
                 1188-89, 197 USPQ 227, 229-30 (CCPA 1978).  Accordingly, based on our consideration of the                                        
                 totality of the record before us, we have weighed the evidence of anticipation and of obviousness found                           
                 in Suzuki with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for non-anticipation and for                                   
                 nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 8 through 10                                
                 are anticipated as a matter of fact under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) and would have been obvious as a matter                              
                 of law under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                                                                                     
                         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).                                                                                                          
                 significance of evidence that a problem was known in the prior art is, of course, that knowledge of a                             

                                                                      - 8 -                                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007