Appeal No. 1997-3497 Page 12
Application No. 08/312,295
Appellants' reference to superior properties for their
product being surprising (brief, page 33) has not been
substantiated on this record with declaration evidence and expert
opinion establishing such for the claimed product. This is
especially so given the breadth of the appealed claims.
Consequently, we shall sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-24 and 28 over the applied
prior art on this record.
Rejection of Claims 8, 9, 12 and 15
With respect to the examiner's § 103 rejection of dependent
claims 8, 9, 12 and 15, appellants do not contend that the
additionally applied Yamamoto reference in combination with Shiga
and/or Matsumoto would not have rendered the additional
limitations of those claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See brief, page 32. Accordingly, our affirmance of the
examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, 12 and 15 follows from our
affirmance of the examiner's first mentioned rejection as
indicated above.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10,
11, 13, 14, 16-24 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shiga and/or Matsumoto, individually or in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007