Appeal No. 2003-0052
Application No. 09/782,268
is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In
re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979). The
specification data under consideration is considerably more
narrow in scope than the argued claims on appeal with respect to
many parameters including catalyst, temperature, flow rate and
reactant ratios. None of the appealed claims argued by the
appellant are limited at all with respect to these parameters.
For example, the specification data is based on the use of
activated cesium fluoride catalyst whereas none of the argued
claims on appeal is limited to cesium fluoride catalyst in any
form and, of all the claims on appeal, none is limited to cesium
fluoride catalyst which has been activated.
To summarize, in analyzing the propriety of the Section
103 rejection before us, we have determined that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness and, thereupon,
have considered the argument and evidence submitted by the
appellant in assessing ultimate patentability based on the
totality of the record by a preponderance of evidence with due
consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As a
result of this analysis, it is our ultimate determination that
the totality of the record before us weights most heavily in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007