Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
However, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have the reasonable expectation that a dispersion of metal particles,
such as gold and platinum, would result in a reflective coating, particularly
one having at least the non-specified degree of reflection that is within the
broad scope of the appealed claims.
As for the separate § 103 rejections of various dependent claims,
Appellants have not convinced us that the Examiner's rejections are in error.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC
100 Pine Street
P. O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013