Appeal No. 2006-0446
Application No. 09/778,103
Appellants’ argument misses the thrust of the examiner’s
rejection, which involves substituting the sulfate supports of
Shigeru for the functionally equivalent supports taught by
Lauder. Such a substitution for the support would not compromise
the integrity of the ABO crystal structure of Lauder, and the3
examiner is correct in stating that columns 12-13 of Lauder
indicate that “the support materials are not particularly
limited” (page 7 of answer, first paragraph).
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness
established by the applied prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007