Appeal 2006-2180
Application 10/752,180
particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range
achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. [Citations
omitted.]”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Mendelson and Nagayama and as further combined
with Blehert and with Hufton with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of
and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 6, 9 through 11, 13 through 15,
42 through 44, and 51 through 62 would have been obvious as a matter of
law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007