Appeal No. 2000-1836
Application 08/917,336
potentials falling within the claimed ranges (e.g., claims 29-30) and teaches the electrolytic
introduction of dissolved hydrogen into the water.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Reznik with appellants’ countervailing evidence
of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 1 through 8 and 19 would have been obvious as a matter of law under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007