Appeal No. 2003-0366
Application 09/349,759
F.2d 1175, 1179-80, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be
compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection); In re
Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965) (“[W]e do not feel it an
unreasonable burden on appellants to require comparative examples relied on for non-
obviousness to be truly comparative. The cause and effect sought to be proven is lost here in the
welter of unfixed variables.”). Indeed, appellants have not submitted any explanation or
evidence with respect to the practical significance of such results vis-à-vis the teachings of Beck
and why the results would have been considered unexpected. See generally, In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099,
231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897, 225 USPQ 645, 651-52
(Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); In re
Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972); In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244,
1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Beck, Cattanach ‘942
and Cattanach ‘024 with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 15
through 20, 36 through 42, 79, 81, 83, 84 and 86 would have been obvious as a matter of law
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007