Appeal 2007-0159
Application 10/850,019
F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (concluding
that a claimed invention was rendered obvious by a prior art reference whose
disclosed range ("about 1-5%" carbon monoxide) abutted the claimed range
("more than 5% to about 25%" carbon monoxide)).
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has properly established
a prima facie case of anticipation and obviousness as to claims 1-16, 18, and
26-31 which Appellants have failed to rebut.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-16, 18, and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Campbell ‘026 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-16 and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Villalobos or Campbell ‘144 or Campbell ‘590 is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 12-16, and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Brand is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-16 and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paquet is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-16, 18, and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Chiefari is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013