Appeal 2006-2185
Application 10/248,892
for such dissolution prior to reacting the urea, we note that the discovery of
such an allegedly new advantage is not persuasive of unobviousness. In this
regard, we note that Appellants have not alleged any criticality and/or any
unexpected advantages as being attributable to this claimed dissolution
feature much less proffered any truly comparative tests to establish such. In
this regard, Appellants have not established that Comparative Examples 2
and 3 presented in their Specification are representative of the closest prior
art. Nor has Appellant established that Example 1 of the Specification is
commensurate in scope with the here claimed subject matter much less
attended by unexpected results.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hawkins ‘005 or Hawkins ‘510, each in
view of Taylor and Graves is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007