Appeal No. 2004-0676
Application No. 09/562,686
Having determined that Dombrowski would have rendered the
claimed subject matter prima facie obvious, we review the showing
in the specification and the Rule 132 declaration referred to by
the appellants to determine whether the claimed subject matter
imparts unexpected results. Our review supports the examiner’s
factual finding that the showing is not commensurate in scope with
the claims on appeal. See In re Clemens, 622 G.2d 1029, 1035, 206
USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189,
197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978). While the showing is limited to
employing two specific porous inorganic oxide matrix materials
adsorbed with a specific organosilane compound under specific
coating conditions to produce two specific coated substrates, the
claims on appeal are not so limited. The appellants simply have
not proffered sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that the
showing limited to employing specific porous compositions,
organosilane compound and coating conditions is predictive of those
employing materially different porous inorganic oxide materials
having different porosities, materially different organosilane
compounds and patentably different vapor coating conditions covered
by the claims on appeal.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007