Appeal No. 2007-0491
Application No. 10/495,074
kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness.”)
For these reasons, we do not agree that Appellants have demonstrated
that the mercapto compound described in Satoshi is excluded from claim 17
by the phrase “consisting essentially of.” Appellants have not rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case that claim 17 is anticipated by Satoshi. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims
18-25 fall with claim 17.
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Satoshi. We have already found that claim 17 is anticipated by Satoshi.
Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379,
1385-1386, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1466 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, we affirm
the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 18-25 fall with
claim 17.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013