Appeal No. 1997-0540
Application No. 08/209,847
Finally, the appellants' proffered data is not adequate
to rebut the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness
because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims to
which it pertains. In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ
805, 808
(CCPA 1979). For example, the processes said by the
appellants to represent their invention include parameters
such as catalyst exposing and soaking times which are much
more narrow in scope than the corresponding parameters of the
appealed process claims. In light of the
foregoing, it is our ultimate determination that the evidence
of record, on balance, weighs most heavily in favor of an
obviousness conclusion with respect to the appellants' process
claims. We shall, therefore, sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection of process claims 11, 12, 14, 15 and 22 as being
unpatentable over Ardary in view of Lespade or Bendig and
Thompson.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007