Appeal No. 2006-0440
Application No. 10/291,933
difference between the results obtained through the claimed
invention and those of the prior art and (2) that the difference
actually obtained would not have been expected by one skilled in
the art at the time of invention).
Finally, it is not entirely clear that the appellants
followed the procedures set forth in the examples of Grimm,
which teaches that there was no evidence of any air blisters in
the product. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21
USPQ 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(“[R]esults must be shown to be
unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”).
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
appealed claims 1 through 9, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over
Grimm in view of Zimmer.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007