Ex Parte Chasan et al - Page 14


              Appeal 2007-0691                                                                     
              Application 10/465,423                                                               
          1   a function of the triazole or are instead a function of the triazole and the         
          2   sulfur-containing compound.                                                          
          3         In his declaration, Dr. Chasan testifies that the results he says he           
          4   obtained are "surprising."  However, Dr. Chasan's "surprising" statement is          
          5   not a cogent response to the Examiner's concerns.  In this respect, we note          
          6   that Ciba has not filed a reply to the Examiner's Answer.1  It is not clear on       
          7   what underlying basis Dr. Chasan says that the experimental data provides a          
          8   sufficient scientific basis for finding that Ciba's favored triazole will perform    
          9   a similar lead-reducing result with a representative number of the sulfur-           
         10   containing compounds falling within the Markush group of sulfur-containing           
         11   compounds set out in claims 1 and 12.  The Examiner was not obligated to             
         12   accept Ciba's unsupported assertions of Ciba's expert witness.  Rohm and             
         13   Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462                 
         14   (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact         
         15   finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness).  We decline       
         16   to second-guess the weight the Examiner assigned to the experimental data.           
         17         The Examiner found that "it is not clear if the results presented are          
         18   indeed unexpected."  Answer 6.  The Examiner's finding is supported on this          
         19   record given that the claims on appeal do not limit the compositions and             
         20   methods to those which reduce lead-containing levels.  As noted above, the           
         21   claims only define the lead levels of compositions containing components             
                                                                                                  
              1   To the extent that in some paper before the Examiner Ciba presented an           
              argument responding to the Examiner's concerns, no such argument is                  
              presented in the Appeal Brief.  The only arguments we consider on appeal             
              are those made in the Appeal Brief.  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).  All       
              other arguments which could have been made, but were not made, are                   
              waived.                                                                              
                                                14                                                 

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013