Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 15
Application No. 10/412,840
quality improvements, for products derived from a process
commensurate in scope with the claimed process. Indeed, the
referred to specification evidence has not even been shown to
compare products of the closest prior art process with products
of a process commensurate in scope with the process of any of the
appealed claims at issue. Concerning this matter, it is not
within the Board’s province to ferret out particular facts (e.g.,
data) from the specification which may support appellants’
seeming assertion of unexpected advantages for the claimed
process. See In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 719, 184 USPQ 29, 33
(CCPA 1974).
Consequently, we shall also sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection, as to all of the rejected claims, on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6, 13-18 and
21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Erickson is affirmed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007