Appeal No. 1997-0581
Application No. 08/168,549
bear the burden of establishing unexpected results. See In re
Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972); In
re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228, 149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, having considered all of the evidence proffered by
both the examiner and appellants, we find that the evidence of
obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of
unobviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, we agree with the
examiner that the subject matter defined by claims 1 through
12 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over either Strait or Kelusky.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of one of
Strait and Kelusky and one of Knowles and Stuart. Claim 13,
unlike claims 1, 11 and 12, requires that the finally grafted
copolymer has greater than five weight percent of grafted
maleic anhydride and an acid number greater than twenty eight.
However, as acknowledged by the examiner, “Strait discloses
that upto [sic] 2 wt% of maleic anhydride is grafted (col. 3,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007