Appeal No. 2005-2465
Application 10/293,373
from about 1 to 5 µm, somewhat like a mosaic (Figure 2 hereof),” which disclosure appears to
encompass the product of process “b).”
Thus, as the examiner points out, there is no assurance in the evidence in the declaration
that a free-flowing shot coke is not produced with a process that has an air contact time of four
(4) hours.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to Heck do not address the pre-heating step
acknowledged therein on which the examiner relies.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of British Petroleum and
Heck with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 15 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (September 2004).
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007