Ex Parte Zen - Page 5

             Appeal No. 2007-0180                                                          Page 5              
             Application No. 10/663,843                                                                        

                   Here, the Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious in view of Schmitt.  It               
             is not necessary that the prior art reference describe a specific example of the                  
             claimed subject matter, only that it would have fairly suggested it to the skilled                
             person.  We find that the Examiner has set forth a sound rationale for his                        
             conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious in view of                      
             Schmitt and the secondary references.  See Answer 4: 16 to 6: 20.  The Examiner                   
             has pointed to disclosure in Schmitt of the same ingredients recited in claim 1, in               
             overlapping amounts,1 and has explained why the skilled worker would have been                    
             motivated to choose them.  In addition, the Examiner has explained that the choice                
             of a pyrethroid as required in claim 1 would have been obvious to the person of                   
             ordinary skill in the art for its known wood-protecting activity.  Answer 5 and                   
             6: 13 to 7: 4.  Appellants have not identified any defect in this reasoning.                      
                   “When the PTO shows prima facie obviousness, the burden then shifts to the                  
             applicant to rebut it.  In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 [16 USPQ2d 1897] (Fed. Cir.               
             1990) (en banc).  Rebuttal may take the form of ‘a comparison of test data showing                
             that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties . . . that                 
             the prior art does not have, that the prior art is so deficient that there is no                  
             motivation to make what might otherwise appear to be obvious changes, or any                      
             other argument . . . that is pertinent.’ Id. at 692-93 (citations omitted).”  In re               
             Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1954 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Appellants                   
             assert that “any prima facie case of obviousness has been overcome by unexpected                  

                                                                                                              
             1 When there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed invention                     
             overlaps or falls within that range, there is a presumption of obviousness.  In re                
             Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Iron                        
             Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228                         
             (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013