Appeal No. 2000-0459
Application 08/838,584
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 851, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072-73 (CCPA 1980);
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)
and In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA
1979).
Appellants have not established that the limited examples
furnished in the specification represent the closest prior art.
For example, appellants have not established what effect other
exemplified composition ingredients, such as IRGANOX 1010, had on
the reported results, if any. See page 26 of the specification.
Nor have appellants explained how the specification comparison
examples can be considerd as closer to the invention, as claimed,
than representative examples of the applied references’
teachings, such as example 3 of Caselli. It is not insignificant
that appellants’ specification does not characterize the
different results reported for the examples set forth therein as
unexpected differences. Thus, on this record, appellants’
evidence has simply not been shown to rebut the examiner’s
rejection.
Under the circumstances recounted above, the evidence of
record, on balance, weighs most heavily in favor of an
obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly, I would affirm the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 2, 18, 24-37, 39-41 and 43.
PETER F. KRATZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
) AND
) INTERFERENCES
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007