Appeal No. 2005-2508
Application No. 09/874,314
would have been the closest prior art for comparative purposes.
Finally, as noted by the examiner (Answer, page 5), the “Fouling
Evaluation Test” is subjective, employing only visual observation
(Reply Brief, page 6) with no standards for the determination of
what constitutes “fouling.” Thus the results cannot be
determined to be “unexpected” since there is no standard for the
difference between “no fouling” and “fouling.”
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer,
based on the totality of the record, including due consideration
of appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Dobashi in view of EP ‘585.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007