Appeal 2006-2468
Application 10/149,875
As for Appellants’ contentions regarding unexpected results based on
the Kester declaration, see In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182
U.S.P.Q. 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) (holding that an anticipation rejection
“cannot be overcome by evidence of unexpected results or teachings away
in the art.”). Moreover, Appellants do not point to any showing,
commensurate in scope with the claims, which might support a conclusion
of unexpected results for reasons set forth in the per curiam opinion.
On this record, I would have affirmed the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection.
cam
The Procter & Gamble Company
Intellectual Property Division
Winton Hill Business Center – Box 161
6110 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
21
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Last modified: November 3, 2007