Appeal No. 2004-1287
Application 09/211,410 Page 8
the representative appealed claim 6. See In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356,
1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979).
Moreover, appellants simply have not shown that the examples
prepared for comparison represent the closest prior art given the
disclosure of Visser as to the amount of metal oxide heat transfer
particles to be included, as discussed above. Hence, we are not
satisfied that the evidence of record that is offered demonstrates
results that are truly unexpected and commensurate in scope with the
claims. Nor have appellants satisfied their burden of explaining
how the results reported for those limited examples presented can
be extrapolated therefrom so as to be reasonably guaranteed as
attainable through practicing the invention as broadly claimed.
Having reconsidered all of the evidence of record proffered by
the examiner and appellants, we have determined that the evidence of
obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness.
Hence, we conclude that the claimed subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 6-10, 14
and 16-21.
Concerning the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 11-13
further employing the teachings of Fitzgerald, we note that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007