Appeal 2006-2668
Application 10/264,763
Appellants’ argument is admittedly based on their assumption that Boothe
requires fillers which lack opacity. See Specification ¶ [0010]. Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidentiary support for this theory. Moreover,
as noted above, we interpret Boothe’s disclosure as indicating a preference,
rather than a requirement, for selection of fillers which do not absorb
ultraviolet radiation.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness as to appealed claims 1, 2, and 4-8, and
that Appellants failed to present persuasive arguments or evidence to
overcome the Examiner’s prima facie showing.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Boothe in view of Nelson is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(i)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
TRASK BRITT
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013