Appeal No. 2007-0180 Page 6
Application No. 10/663,843
superiority of the present invention.” Br. 9. This evidence is presented in “Test
Example 2” of the specification. Answer 7. We concur with the Examiner that
that the data in Test Example 2 is not probative of “unexpected superiority” for at
least the reasons set forth by the Examiner, i.e., the test formulation described in
the example is not within the scope of the claimed subject matter. Answer 7-8.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Because
Appellants have not provided separate reasons for patentability, claims 4-10 fall
with claim 1.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Richard M. Lebovitz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013