Appeal No. 2002-2215
Application No. 08/952,475
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior
art range.’” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70, 43 USPQ2d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(quoting In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Because the appellants have not successfully rebutted the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, we uphold this ground
of rejection.
Summary
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 3, 4, 7, 10 through 13, 16,
and 17 as unpatentable over: (i) Giese; or (ii) Bonkowski in view
of Helmer.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007