Appeal 2007-4193
Application 10/367,432
Sample K as stated by counsel in the Brief. In this respect, it is well settled
that unsupported arguments of counsel are entitled to little, if any, weight.
See, e.g., In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA
1979); Lindner, 457 F.2d at 508, 173 USPQ at 358.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
in this art would have expected that there would have been differences
between the tested Corrosion Inhibitors based on the difference in the
average molecular weight of the polyisobutenyl group on the succinimide
moiety alone. Cf. Ex parte Moiso, 212 USPQ 294, 296 (BPAI 1980)
(“[T]here is a normal range of variations in properties that may be expected
among a group of closely related compounds.”). Thus, we are of the opinion
the reported results represent no more than the result expected by one of
ordinary skill in this art based on the unfixed variables.
Moreover, even if it is held that the evidence in the Specification
establishes unexpected results with respect to Sample K, there is no evidence
that the same result would be exhibited by the myriads of claimed
compositions encompassed by claim 1, as we interpreted this claim above,
vis-à-vis those of the combined teachings of Willis and Stuart. See, e.g.,
In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149-150, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035-036, 206 USPQ 289, 295-96
(CCPA 1980); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230
(CCPA 1978); Lindner, 457 F.2d at 508, 173 USPQ at 358.
Thus, we fail to find in the record argument and evidence sufficient to
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013