Appeal No. 2003-1713
Application No. 09/853,727
range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-
37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303,
182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See also In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In
the instant case, the claimed amount of from “about 1 to
about 10%” overlaps Edwards’ disclosed amount of “up to
40%” and from “5 to 30%”. We therefore determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case. Appellants
have not presented evidence, such as unexpected results, or
other rebuttal evidence, to overcome the prima facie case.
We therefore affirm the rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
LORA M. GREEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BAP/sld
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007