Appeal 2007-2234
Application 09/950,477
explain how the test data is regarded in the relevant art, e.g., what degree of
reproducibility or standard deviation is typically found, how was the data
was evaluated, what defines a "significant" difference in results, etc.
Moreover, in rebuttal to the Larsson Declaration, the Examiner pointed out
that aluminate-modified silica colloids, e.g., LUDOX AM®, are known slip
resistant compositions, as disclosed by Wilkinson (Answer, 10). Thus,
based on Wilkinson, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected aluminate-modified silica particles to show
improved skid-resistance vis-à-vis unmodified silica particles. Appellants
neither challenged nor commented on the Wilkinson disclosure in their
Reply Brief and have therefore waived all argument in the immediate
appeal.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection (i) of
claims 1-9, 11-19, 21-28 and 30 under § 103(a) as obvious over Miranda in
light of Iler and (ii) of claims 10, 20 and 29 under § 103(a) as obvious over
Miranda in light of Iler, as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21, and further in
view of Miranda '438.
III. Conclusion
In summary, the decision of the Examiner (i) to reject claims 1-9, 11-
19, 21-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miranda in light
of Iler and (ii) to reject claims 10, 20 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Miranda in light of Iler, as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21, and
further in view of Miranda '438 is affirmed. However, since our reasons for
concluding that the claims are unpatentable differ substantially from those
advanced by the Examiner, we denominate our affirmance as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION. 37 CFR § 41.50(b).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013