Appeal 2007-2671
Application 10/461,955
the particular application. Hence, such preferences would seem to allay any
suggestion of criticality, and, we note that the original claims failed to recite
solids content as part of the claimed invention.
Consequently, we find that it would have been a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solids content
of the type of composition disclosed by Rowley outside the broadly
disclosed range, either above or below it, with the reasonable expectation
that its viscosity, as well as other properties, would be altered. We agree
with the Examiner that it would have taken no more than routine
experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the
particular solids content and properties of the composition that are most
suitable for a particular application and use of the composition.
Hence, we find that the prima facie case of obviousness established by
the Examiner has not been rebutted by Appellants.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons set forth 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)(vi)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013