Appeal 2006-2968
Application 10/039,481
this is “exactly what a person of the art would have understood as the utility
of the methodology or chargeability increase taught by the disclosure and
shown in the figures.” (Br. 7). But Appellant does not identify where the
Specification discusses the concept of suitability for a given process, but not
suitable for others. Nor does Appellant provide objective evidence of what
those of ordinary skill in the art would have understood when reading the
Specification. Therefore, we cannot say that Appellant has met the burden
in rebuttal.
With regard to the § 103 rejections, I agree with the determination and
reasoning of my colleagues in full.
cam
Hewlett Packard Company
P. O. Box 272400
3404 E. Harmony Road
Intellectual Property Admin.
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013