Appeal No. 1999-1832
Application No. 08/474,233
appellants’ claim 20, and it is used in various amounts, but the
other of the variables listed above are held constant.
Consequently, the experiments do not cover the scope of the
claims. We find in the evidence of record no reasonable basis
for concluding that the great number of materials and their
relative amounts encompassed by the appellants’ claims would
behave as a class in the same manner as the particular materials
and relative amounts 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 processes recited in the
appellants’ claims 14 and 20 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 14 and 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, written description requirement, and under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Mao in view of Ishimaru, are affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007