Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
cellulose derivative structurally more similar to the cellulose
triphenyl carbamate described in Hagel, such as, e.g., cellulose
tri(methylphenyl carbamate) covered by the appealed claims, can
produce the same improvements as cellulose tri(3,5-dimethylphenyl
carbamate).9 Moreover, the appellants have not demonstrated that
the improvements obtained by using the particular bonding
technique and the particular carrier can be extended to those
sorbents produced by using the materially different carriers and
materially different bonding techniques covered by the appealed
claims.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(1999), we
make a new ground of rejection against claim 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hagel,
Mikes and Schaeffer for the reasons set forth above.
9 A showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in
scope with the appealed claims only to the extent that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Compare In re Wakefield, 422 F.2d 897, 901, 164 USPQ 636, 639
(CCPA 1970).
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007