Appeal No. 1997-1793
Application No. 08/528,044
Claims 2 through 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kleinschmit in view of
Hattori and Ishihara.
We refer to the appeal brief and to the examiner’s answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the above
noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons stated below, we cannot sustain the
aforementioned rejection of claims 2 through 5, 9, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse. Further, we
remand this application to the examiner for appropriate action
as noted below.
We consider first the examiner’s §103 rejection. The
examiner’s stated position is as follows:
. . . Kleinschmit et al. shows that it was known
to make powders containing silica and either one of
titania or iron oxide, made by the instant flame
hydrolytic processes, but fails to explicitly teach
that a combination of titania and iron oxide should
be used in the absence of silica (col. 1, l. 30-65).
Hattori shows that it was known to make Ti/Fe
mixed oxides by coprecipitating and hydrolyzing Ti
and Fe, but fails to suggest flame hydrolysis (first
page, Table 1, Table 4). In the absence of any
showing of criticality or of unexpected results, it
would have been a matter of obvious design choice to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007