Appeal No. 2006-2119
Application No. 10/357,977
Appellant asserts (Reply Brief, page 2) that the examples in the specification demonstrate
unexpected results are achieved at temperatures of between 185°C to 190°C. This argument and
evidence is not persuasive to overcome the Examiner's rejection under § 102.2
Based on consideration of the entire record, we affirm the Examiner's rejections under
§§ 102 and 103.
CONCLUSION
The examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, and the
prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are affirmed.
2 Anticipation under § 102 is a question of fact which is not rebuttable by evidence of unexpected superior
properties. See, for example, In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), wherein the
Court stated that anticipation cannot be overcome by evidence of unexpected results or teaching away in the art.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007