Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess
2 unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not
3 have…” In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed.
4 Cir. 1990)(en banc).
5
6 ANALYSIS
7 Applicants have argued claims 1-12, 15, 17-30, and 33-35 together.
8 We therefore select claim 1 as representative of all the appealed claims and
9 confine our discussion to this representative claim. Furthermore, any
10 argument not made has been waived. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
11
12 Rejection I: Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469, Each in View of Burd
13 The Examiner found that the only difference between the invention
14 recited in appealed claim 1 and the system of Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469 is
15 in the configuration of the tubular structure of the grain selector. This
16 finding is not disputed. The Examiner then demonstrated that helical grain
17 selectors were old in the art and thus concluded that it would have been
18 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monte ‘468 or Monte
19 ‘469 by providing the systems described therein with a conventional helical
20 grain selector.
21 Applicants argue, however, that each of the Monte references
22 describes the use of an improved crystal selector having a single bend
23 section and “actually teaches away from the more complex grain selector
24 configurations (i.e., helix, three-dimensional bends, staircases, zigzags) of
25 the present invention...” (Br. 7.) We disagree.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013