Appeal No. 2007-1487
Application 09/562,632
significance of such results vis-à-vis the teachings of the applied references
and why the results would have been considered unexpected in view of the
prior art by one of ordinary skill in this art. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Merck,
800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Longi,
759 F.2d 887, 897, 225 USPQ 645, 651-52 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); In re Klosak,
455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972); In re D’Ancicco,
439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971). On this record,
Appellants have not carried this burden. Thus, we determine that the
demonstrated “better” results with respect to adhesion and blistering of the
compared claimed compositions containing the epoxy functional silane
components would have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill
in this art from the teachings of the “improved” properties provided by this
component in Morikawa.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Kubitza and Morikawa with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness, and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 8
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013