Appeal 2007-0736
Application 10/480,239
claimed invention (which can include ruthenium made from ruthenium
chloride). (FFs 20-24; see also FF 3.) We further note Appellants’ data are
not compared for the same number of “passes,” do not consider the claims
only require a single “pass” (FF 2), for which they have not provided data
for Catalyst A or B, and do not include certain relevant data for the
comparative examples. (See Spec. 15 (Table 1) (indicating the proportion of
hydrogenated epoxide groups was not determined for 2 of the 3 comparative
samples).) Such incomplete data cannot support “unexpected results,” even
if their comparison were appropriate.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 based on the
references cited by the Examiner. Pursuant to § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we
also affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-12, as these claims were not
argued separately.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA & QUIGG, LLP
1300 EYE STREET NW
SUITE 1000 WEST TOWER
WASHINGTON DC 20005
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013