Appeal No. 2006-0581
Application 09/997,082
Cir. 1986). Indeed, it would appear that, based on the Kosuda
disclosure, one would have reasonably expected the results reported
in the specification. It is well settled that expected results are
evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of
non-obviousness. In re Skoner, 514 F.2d 747, 460,
186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).
We note that appellants do not provide a separate argument for
separately rejected claims 17 and 18 but “assert that this rejection
should be reversed for all the reasons given above with regard to
the First and Second Issues” (page 15 of principal brief, last
paragraph).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007