Appeal No. 95-0055
Application No. 07/985,354
scope of this reference (see the Brief, page 7, penultimate
paragraph).
Similarly, the examiner has failed to support his
contention that appellant’s disclosure of "EPARCYLŽ" is an
"admission that mixtures of chabazite and phillipsite [natural
zeolites]... are known biological activators" (Answer, page
3). The disclosure on page 9, lines 12-17, of the
specification must be taken in context with the disclosure at
page 2, lines 6-7, that ZEOPORT B180 alone is a mixture of
natural zeolites and is not known to be suitable as a
biological activator (specification, page 4, lines 8-17, see
the brief, page 8, penultimate paragraph). The "prior
biological activator" EPARCYLŽ (specification, page 9) is a
natural clay material (see Exhibit 1 attached to the amendment
dated Oct. 15, 1991, Paper No. 9, in parent Application No.
07/492,713). There is no evidence in this record that
mixtures of chabazite and phillipsite were known biological
activators or that EPARCYLŽ contains any vitreous material or
zeolites.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the
examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not supported by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007