Appeal No. 2002-0146
Application No. 09/110,128
results. There is no discussion of what criteria were used to
determine whether a given result was acceptable or not. There is
also no comparison of the submitted data with equivalent tests
using the prior art devices. The range described in Iwakawa may
be limited to the desirable range rather than an acceptable range
as used by appellant. Without a comparison of the claimed device
with the prior art device and without a discussion of what type
of result is deemed acceptable, there can be no determination
made as to whether or not the data submitted in appellant’s
Figure 9 constitutes unexpected results for the claimed range.
Therefore, appellant’s arguments fail to overcome the examiner’s
prima facie case that the invention of claim 1 would have been
obvious to the artisan over the applied prior art. Since claims
2 and 3 are grouped with claim 1, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3.
With respect to claims 4-7, appellant argues that
Kobayashi does not overcome the deficiencies of Iwakawa discussed
above. Thus, appellant argues that these claims are patentable
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1
[brief, pages 9-10].
Since appellant essentially relies on the patentability
of claim 1 for these claims, and since we have determined that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007