Appeal No. 2006-1253 Page 10
Application No. 09/969,451
same is true at 0°C, wherein Mihalik II reports that both the Apelian formulation
and appellants’ formulation had a viscosity less than about 100 cPs.
In our opinion, the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the prior art
is different from appellants’ claimed invention, or that the additional listed
ingredient in the prior art affects the basic and novel properties of their claimed
invention. Therefore, we are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments and
evidence relating to an asserted unexpected result.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 20, 29 and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Apelian. As set forth above,
claims 21-28 fall together with claim 20; claims 30-36 fall together with claim 29;
and claims 38-42 fall together with claim 37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Eric Grimes ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007