Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
considered. This consideration is not made in a vacuum
however but, rather, evaluated along with evidence of
obviousness present in the record. In our opinion, the
evidence relied upon by Appellant
when weighed against the substantial evidence of obviousness
is not sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case
and, accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of representative claim 1, and claims 2-6 and 16 which fall
with claim 1, is sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 8 and note that, while we
found Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to
representative claim 1 discussed supra, we reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claim 8. Instead of a recited flow
rate ratio of “equal to or greater than 0.4" as in claim 1, a
value within the flow rate range taught in the prior art,
claim 8
recites a flow rate ratio of “approximately 0.8", a value
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007