Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 14
Application No. 08/336,402
relied upon for all that it would have reasonably conveyed to one
having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Merck &
Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10
USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Moreover, for the reasons set forth above and by the
examiner in the answer, we do not find appellants’ arguments as
set forth in the briefs, which read more into those claims than
we can find there, particularly persuasive.
While we disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that the
product set forth in dependent claim 2 is anticipated by
Mitchell, we find ourselves in agreement with the examiner’s
determination that Mitchell renders the product of claim 2 prima
facie obvious. In this regard, we note that Pall (page 5, line
13 through page 7, line 5) teaches that a wide variety of
materials including heat resistant and ceramic forming materials
such as asbestos and aluminum silicate may be selected for use in
making the porous body useful as a filter which reasonably would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to select a ceramic
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007