Appeal No. 1999-0663
Application 08/624,047
Tested ranges Ranges in claim 11
K/Cu 0.035-0.234 0.025-0.25
K/Mg 0.004-0.307 0.01-0.8
Mg/Cu 0.75-0.95 0.5-1.5
Cu 44-60 30-90
Mg 17-18 10-30
K 1.3-8.5 0.1-10
We find in the evidence of record no reasonable basis for
concluding that the values throughout the ranges recited in the
appellants’ claim 11 would produce results in the same manner as
values within the more narrow ranges tested. See In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); In re Susi, 440
F.2d 442, 445-46, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971).
For the above reasons we conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, that the appellants’ claimed
invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12 as obvious over Scott, and claim 13 as
obvious over Scott in view of the appellants’ admitted prior art.
Claim 1: Scott discloses a catalytic composition consisting
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007