Appeal No. 1996-4171
Application 07/762,298
473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Based on the
above, it is apparent that the examiner has not met his burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the
subject matter defined by appealed claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11,
and 15 through 18. Since the examiner has not applied the
“secondary reference” to Purolite in a manner which remedies
the basic deficiencies of the stated rejection based on
Eccles, it logically follows that no prima facie case of
obviousness has been established for the subject matter
defined by appealed claims 2, 3, 5, and 12 through 14.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007