Appeal No. 2006/0764
Application No. 10/281,733
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Doerge.
We note that the rejection involving the reference of Singh
has been withdrawn. Answer, page 3.
To the extent that appellants provide specific arguments
regarding patentability, with respect to a particular claim, we
consider such claim in this appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). We therefore consider claims
1, 13, and 18.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-24 as being
obvious over Doerge
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-4 of the answer.
Beginning on page 5 of the brief, appellants argue that the
amounts of HCFC-22 and C3-C5 polyfluoroalkane are the exact
opposite of the instantly claimed blowing agent. Appellants
refer to column 2, lines 56-62 of Doerge in this regard. We are
not convinced by this argument for the following reasons.
As pointed out by the examiner, beginning on page 4 of the
answer, overlap exists between the end points disclosed in
Doerge and those recited in the claims. We note that in cases
involving overlapping ranges (as in the instant case), it has
been consistently held that even a slight overlap in range
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. E.g., In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007