Appeal 2007-0124
Application 10/273,836
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We determine that the
Examiner has established a reasonable basis or belief that the formulations,
and their attendant properties, are the same or substantially the same, and
Appellants have not met their burden of proof that the claimed formulation
differs substantially from the formulation of Ryan. See Spada, supra; and In
re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation/obviousness which has not been adequately rebutted by
Appellants’ arguments and evidence. Therefore we affirm the rejection of
the claims on appeal under § 102(b)/§ 103(a) over Ryan.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
clj
Cynthia L. Foulke
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
10 Finderne Ave.
Bridgewater, NJ 08807-0500
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013