Appeal No. 95-4963
Application No. 08/151,589
regard as their invention; and
(2) Claims 19, 21 through 25 and 27 through 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Bardhan and Yi.
We reverse each of the above rejections. We reverse the
examiner’s § 112 rejection for essentially those reasons set
forth at pages 11 through 13 of the Supplemental Appeal Brief.
We also reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection inasmuch as the
examiner has not presented adequate factual basis to support
his conclusion of obviousness. As indicated by appellants at
pages 5 through 7 of the Supplemental Appeal Brief, the
examiner has not only failed to supply evidence to establish
that the claimed formula Bi Ti O is identical to or would have
4 312
been rendered obvious by the formula Bi O xTiO described by
23 2
Bardhan, but also failed to supply evidence to establish that
employing a stoichiometric mixture of bismuth and titanium to
form Bi Ti O
4 3 12
is taught or would have been rendered obvious by the combined
teachings of Bardhan and Yi. In this regard, we note that the
examiner does not point to any teaching or suggestion which is
directed to the employment of a stoichiometric mixture of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007