Appeal No. 1997-3770
Application No. 08/451,888
in unlimited proportions. Similarly the molybdenum compounds used are present in
amount from 125ppm to 0.5 %. In comparison the claimed subject matter is unlimited as
to the amount of molybdenum present.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude that the results demonstrated in
the specification are not based on the closest prior art or commensurate in scope with the
appealed claims and, are entitled to little, if any, weight with respect to the patentability of
the claimed subject matter over the teachings of record.
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, and having
evaluated the prima facie case of obviousness in view of appellants’ arguments and
evidence, we conclude that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter within the meaning of § 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 10 through 28, 33 through 39 and 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Suer in combination with Schwind and
Butke is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 25, 29, 30, 38 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gallo in combination with Schwind and Butke is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007