Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 18
Application No. 10/925,646
include equivalent dispersants, as taught by Bucher et al. for the purpose of performing
the same function.” Id.
Appellants argue that, because claim 15 is not anticipated or obvious over the
applied art, the claims which depend from claim 15, such as claim 21, are also not
anticipated nor obvious. However, we have affirmed the § 103 rejection of claim 15
over Scheurman and Waller. In our view, the references applied by the examiner
reasonably would have suggested the method of claim 21 to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. We therefore affirm the § 103 rejection of claim 21. Claims 12 and 14 fall with
claim 21.
The examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Scheurman. Having affirmed the anticipation rejection of this claim over Veldman, we
need not reach this rejection.
Summary
The examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the evidence of
record. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 7-9, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 over Scheurman, the rejection of claims 1, 7-10, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 over Veldman, and the rejection of claims 2-6 and 11-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007