Appeal No. 2004-2011
Application No. 09/919,239
are not commensurate in scope with the degree of protection
sought by the appealed claims.
Also, as pointed out by the examiner, the claim language
"less than 10-10 mole" and "less than 10-7 mole" for the first
fraction and second fraction, respectively, includes a zero
amount of dopant (II) and dopant (I) in the first fraction and
second fraction, respectively. The examiner notes that the
examples of the present specification support this claim
interpretation, and the amounts of dopant (I) disclosed by
Keevert and dopant (II) disclosed by McDugle fall within the
claimed ranges for the first and second fractions.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007