Appeal 2006-2643
Application 09/771,092
the extent Appellant contends that part of the present invention is the
discovery of air bubbles in the pulse jet, we are confident that the problem
would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, as would
have been the solution utilized by Appellant. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241,
243-44, 147 U.S.P.Q. 420, 421 (C.C.P.A. 1965).
As for the other separately argued claims, we fully concur with the
analysis set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We will, however, emphasize
the Examiner’s reliance on Appellant’s admission (Specification 2,
11. 12-17) that it was known in the art to use pulse jets for fabricating an
array of chemical moieties, as recited in claim 11.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference 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