Appeal No. 1997-1617 Page 7
Application No. 08/220,808
product of appealed claim 25 is not limited to products
prepared under the specific conditions reported in the
specification. Also, the results reported in the table at
page 7 of the specification are for products made at high
temperature and pressure conditions to which the product of
claim 25 is not limited, as discussed above. Consequently, we
do not find the specification evidence persuasive of an actual
difference in the product called for by appellants’ claim 25
and the product of Lees.
Appellants have not furnished separate substantive
arguments for each of the claims that are members of the
separate grouping of product claims 25-28 as identified by
appellants. See, e.g., pages 2, 14 and 15 of the supplemental
brief filed October 23, 1996 and pages 24-26, 29 and 30 of the
brief filed June 5, 1996. Hence claims 26-28 are also
considered obvious over the teachings of Lees in light of the
obviousness findings discussed above with respect to claim 25,
the latter claim having been selected by us as a
representative claim in deciding this appeal for the product
claim grouping. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007