Appeal No. 1998-3113
Application No. 08/583,167
including in the composition an amount of monofunctional acid
which is greater than 10 mole%.
Accordingly, we conclude that the composition recited in
the appellants’ claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
appellants’ invention over Nodelman.1
The appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have used the teachings of Nodelman to modify
Wamprecht’s composition (brief, pages 3-4; reply brief, page
2). This argument is not persuasive because, as discussed
above, the claimed invention would have been fairly suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art by Nodelman.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the claimed
invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Hence, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection. Because our rationale
differs substantially from that advanced by the examiner, we
denominate the affirmance as involving a new ground of
rejection under
1A discussion of Wamprecht is not necessary to our
decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007