Appeal No. 2005-1458
Application No. 09/732,799 Page 11
1069, 1072-1073 (CCPA 1980) and In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029,
1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Hence, we are not satisfied that the evidence of record
offered for comparison demonstrates results that are truly
unexpected when compared with the closest prior art and that are
commensurate in scope with the claims.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons set
forth by the examiner, it is our judgment that the evidence of
obviousness presented by the examiner outweighs the evidence of
nonobviousness advanced by appellants. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 17.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 18, 19 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Anthony and Tsuji is reversed. The decision of the examiner
to reject claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Anthony and Tsuji is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007