Appeal No. 2005-0708
Application No. 09/968,967
variable within the claims. [Citations omitted]. These cases
have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant
must show that the particular range is critical, generally by
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results”). We
note that appellants have not proferred any evidence of
unexpected results.
Appellants argue that the examiner’s citation of In re
Aller4 is an “oversimplification” and cite In re Geiger5 as “more
factually relevant” (Brief, page 10). Appellants argue that,
like In re Geiger, none of the three components are taught
together, nor is there motivation here to provide for the three
components (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As clearly shown
and discussed above, Medelnick discloses all three components or
limitations of claim 1 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
4
4220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
5
5815 F.2d 686, 2 USPQ2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007