Appeal No. 2005-1746 Page 7
Application No. 09/963,738
group content of 8.8% by weight), whereas Comparative Example 2 uses LH-11.
Thus, the declaration is not a comparison with the closest prior art.2
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
the previous combination as further combined with Obara. As appellant argues
only that Obara fails to supply the deficiencies of the previous rejection, see
Appeal Brief, page 9, this rejection is also affirmed for the reasons set forth
supra.
CONCLUSION
As the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, the
rejection is affirmed.
2 Moreover, as Shimizu teaches all of the components of the composition of claim 1, and thus
would appear to anticipate the claimed composition, and evidence of unexpected results may not
be used to overcome an anticipatory reference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007