Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
teachings of Farnsworth and Gaudin. In the absence of evidence explaining
the practical significance of the result vis-à-vis the prior art, we are of the
opinion the Examiner appropriately used the evidence in the other examples,
including the Comparative Examples, in reaching a determination that prima
facie the evidence available in the record does not establish that the results
reported would have been unexpected by this person. We will not attempt to
independently determine the significance of the evidence on which
Appellants rely vis-à-vis the Examiner’s position . Cf. Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d at 391, 21 USPQ2d at 1285.
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 Farnsworth, Gaudin, and Kohno alone, and as
combined with each of Okamoto and Imamura with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness, and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1, 3, 5 through
7, and 24 through 26 would have been obvious as a matter of law under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
28
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013