Appeal 2007-4098
Application 09/962,887
ll. 19-25). Nothing in Utamapanya relied upon by the Appellants contradicts
Klabunde’s teaching relating to the desirability of pelletizing the material of
the type discussed in Benjamin. Consequently, we determine that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
As a rebuttal to the prima facie case, the Appellants have again
referred to the same evidence discussed above. For the Factual Findings set
forth above and in the Answer, we are not convinced that the claimed
subject matter as a whole imparts unexpected results.
Accordingly, based on the Factual Findings set forth in the Answer
and above, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most
heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 5 and
6 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
ORDER
In view of the forgoing, the decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
cam
LANXESS CORPORATION
111 RIDC PARK WEST DRIVE
PITTSBURGH, PA 15275-1112
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: September 9, 2013