Appellants lose in Ex parte WEILBACHER

from Ex parte WEILBACHER

**As to combining two known compositions:

See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (“it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.”).

**As to arguments newly made in a reply brief:

We recognize, but decline to address, Appellant’s new contention that “the proposed modification is simply not feasible” as presented in Appellant’s Reply Brief. See Ex parte Borden, http://www.uspto.gov/ip/ boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd08004312.pdf (informative) (Appellant fails to “explain what ‘good cause’ there might be to consider the new argument. On this record, Appellant’s new argument is belated.”).