Appeal 2006-2487
Application 10/227,075
Also, Appellants have not demonstrated that processes within the scope of
the appealed claims, performed without an electron donor, achieve the benefits
ascribed to the use of an electron donor by Sasaki. It is well settled that the
elimination or omission of a feature taught by the prior art along with its attendant
function or advantage is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1976); In re
Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9, (CCPA 1975). Consequently, even if it
were so that Sasaki’s processes use an electron donor, Appellants’ claimed non-use
of an electron donor would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument on objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which would serve to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-stated by the
Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007