Appeal No. 2006-1304 Page 12
Application No. 10/214,058
The Orekhov “paper did not publish until a few months after Appellant’s filing
date.” Supplement to Appeal Brief, filed January 11, 2005, page 3. Appellant asserts
that the paper “show[s] the general knowledge that a person of skill in the art would
have at Appellant’s filing date,” id., but Appellant has presented no evidence or
reasoned explanation of how a paper that was published December 31, 1997 shows the
general knowledge of those in the art as of August 29, 1997, the apparent effective filing
date of the present application. Because the Orekhov paper was not known to those of
ordinary skill in the art as of this application’s effective filing date, it cannot be relied on
as evidence of whether the claimed composition would or would not have been obvious
at that time.
We have considered the other arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief. They are adequately addressed above. The rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Claims 3, 118-120, 124, 125, and 128-141 fall with claim 1.
3. Other obviousness rejections
The examiner rejected the rest of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
follows:9
• claims 2, 121-123, 126, 127, 142, 143, and 145-147, as obvious in view of
Roth, Lazar, Jukema, and Davison;10 and
• claim 144, as obvious in view of Roth, Lazar, Jukema, and Wright.11
9 In addition, the examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious in view of Jukema and Bakker-Arkema. We need
not reach this rejection, since we have already concluded that claim 1 is unpatentable over the other
references cited by the examiner.
10 Davison et al., U.S. Patent 4,879,303, issued November 7, 1989.
11 Wright et al., U.S. Patent 5,208,037, issued May 4, 1993.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007