Appeal No. 2006-0753
Application No. 09/682,010
to 350oC in flowing nitrogen, the claims on appeal are not so
limited. On this record, the appellants have not provided any
objective evidence or scientific basis to conclude that the
limited showing referred to is predictive of all of the zeolites,
flowing gases, initial heating temperatures, cooling tempera-
tures, and other catalytic materials, including binders, covered
by the claims on appeal.
Moreover, it cannot be ascertained from Example 1 whether
the alleged unexpected results are due to the claimed calcination
temperatures as alleged or the period of calcination employed
since Example 1 does not identify the period of calcination for
the second calcination step. In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228,
149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, having considered the totality of record, including
due consideration of all of the evidence and arguments proffered
by both the examiner and the appellants, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting all of the claims on
appeal under § 103(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007