Appeal No. 2006-3012
Application No. 09/808,878
question is whether the combination of claim 7 is unexpectedly superior to
the prior art combination of 2.5 mg MPA and 0.3 mg CEE. Appellant’s
evidence provides no comparison to the closest prior art and therefore shows
no unexpected properties compared to the closest prior art.
SUMMARY
The reference relied on by the examiner shows that claim 7 would
have been prima facie obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant’s evidence does not outweigh the evidence of obviousness. We
affirm the rejection of claim 7. Claims 11, 12, and 69 fall with claim 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
DEMETRA J. MILLS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
NANCY J. LINCK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013