Appeal No. 1996-2690
Application 07/967,787
references to fill the gaps. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 983, 986-87, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
On the record before us, we find that the examiner has failed to establish that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the
crosslinking agent required by claim 2 into those processes taught by Ulman in a manner
to arrive at the claimed process. Reck fails to provide that missing suggestion or reason
to so modify Ulman. Where the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.1988). Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 2-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ulman alone,
or Ulman taken in combination with Reck is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ulman
taken in combination with Reck is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007