Appeal No. 2006-1761
Application No. 10/153,074
We are not persuaded of non-obviousness by the examples and
comparative examples (specification, pages 16-18, as summarized
in the Brief, pages 8-9). These results are not commensurate in
scope with the claims sought to be patented, with the examples
limited to specific materials in specific amounts while claim 1
on appeal is not so limited. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor
of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore
we affirm both rejections on appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007