Appeal No. 1998-2229
Application 08/491,663
have fairly suggested that particular texture to one of
ordinary skill in the art and provided such a person with a
reasonable expectation of success in modifying the applied
prior art to obtain it. See Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d at
473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531.
As correctly pointed out by the examiner (answer, page
5), the appellants claim a product and not a process. The
examiner, however, has not carried the burden of explaining
why a product having the characteristics recited in the
appellants’ claim 1 would have been fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art by the applied references.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Gunstone in view of Milo and List is reversed.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007