Appeal No. 2006-1341
Application No. 09/782,180
Concerning the separately rejected claims 9-12 and 13-16
over Tamaki in view of Sakaguchi and Takahashi, respectively, we
have no doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to apply the resin by the well-known techniques
of printing or spin-coating. While appellants make reference to
the specification for disclosing that the application of the
resin by printing or spin-coating allows highly viscous resins to
be applied in desired amounts and thicknesses, appellants have
not established that such disclosure would be considered truly
unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). In
order to demonstrate unexpected results it is appellants’ burden
to establish that objective data supporting unexpected results is
commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the
appealed claims and represents a fair comparison with the closest
prior art. Appellants have referenced no such data in the
principal and reply briefs on appeal.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, and the reasons
well-stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting
the appealed claims is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007