Appeal No. 2005-1459 Application No. 09/950,612 alumina be combined (Brief, page 12). Appellants further argue that improved results are shown for this combination in Table 1 on page 9 of the specification (id.). These arguments are not persuasive. First we note that the combination of ceria and alumina required by claim 2 on appeal is disclosed by Robinson at col. 15, ll. 50-54, with only seven possible materials that can be combined (our comments also apply to claim 5 on appeal directed to a combination of alumina and silica). Accordingly, the number of possible combinations disclosed by Robinson is so few that the combination of ceria and alumina would have been put in the possession of the public and thus be a bar under section 102(b). See In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1384, 213 USPQ 441, 442 (CCPA 1982); and In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978). It is well settled that anticipation is the epitome or ultimate of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982). A showing of unexpected results is not appropriate to overcome a rejection for anticipation. See In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302-03, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Even assuming arguendo that claim 2 (and claim 5) is obvious, appellants have not met their burden of explaining why the results in Table 1 on page 9 of the specification are considered 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007