Appeal No. 2002-1116
Application No. 09/213,544
369 (CCPA 1971). How such a teaching is set forth, either by
use of illustrative examples or by broad terminology, is
irrelevant.”). This presumption has not been rebutted by any
objective evidence of record. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 679,
207 USPQ 107, 111 (CCPA 1980); Spence, 261 F.2d at 246, 120 USPQ
at 83. For example, on this record, the appellants have not
presented any clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been able to make the expanded
graphite material of Mototani from the information provided in
Mototani, and the knownledge in the art at the time of the
invention, without undue experimentation. Compare Vaeck, 947
F.2d at 495, 20 USPQ2d at 1444.
Because appellant has not met the aforementioned burden, we
are unconvinced that a representative example of Mototani cannot
be reproduced.
Thus, having considered all of the evidence and arguments
advanced by the examiner and appellants, we determine that the
evidence of obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of
nonobviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the examine’s decision
rejecting all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007