Ex Parte Patel et al - Page 7

                Appeal  2006-2507                                                                                  
                Application 10/106,473                                                                             

                100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (affirming                             
                the rejection of claims requiring thickness ratios above those employed in                         
                the prior art).2  See In re Schwarze, 536 F.2d 1373, 1377, 190 USPQ 294,                           
                296 (CCPA 1976) (affirming an obviousness rejection of a claim to a                                
                chemical process in which the first stage was conducted at 0-50°C when the                         
                prior art process conducted the first stage at 60-90°C); In re Hill, 284 F.2d                      
                955, 958-59; 128 USPQ 197, 199 (CCPA 1960) (affirming an obviousness                               
                rejection of a claim to a chemical process conducted at 150-250°C when the                         
                prior art disclosed the same reaction at 300°C); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,                        
                456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“Normally, it is to be expected that                           
                a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an                              
                unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes                              
                such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges                       
                claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and                         
                not merely in degree from the results of the prior art”).  Appellants have not                     
                directed us to any evidence of unexpected results or shown that the prior art                      
                teaches away from the claimed range. See C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced                               
                Cardiovascular Systems, 911 F.2d 670, 674 n.2, 15 USPQ2d 1540, 1544 n.2                            
                (Fed. Cir. 1990) (attorney arguments are not evidence).  See also, In re                           
                                                                                                                  
                2“The difference between the Huang grip and the prior art was that the                             
                Huang grip increased the thickness of the polyurethane layer relative to the                       
                textile layer, and had greater shock-absorbing qualities. There was nothing                        
                new or unexpected about this result because the prior art taught "that shock                       
                absorption derives in part from the compressible nature of the polyurethane                        
                layer. Given that the polyurethane layer absorbs shock, one of ordinary skill                      
                would logically infer that increasing the amount of the shock absorbing                            
                material (the polyurethane) would lead to an increase in the amount of shock                       
                absorption." Id.                                                                                   
                                                        7                                                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007