Appeal No. 1998-2288
Application 08/600,150
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not met the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
52-63 and 65-79 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. ¶1, is reversed.
C. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The claims on appeal stand rejected under section 103 as
unpatentable over Lafon in view of Choy, Wu and Grigenaite or,
in the alternative, over Choy, Wu and Grigenaite in view of
Lafon and further in view of Joyce or Katz and Bryson,
Wanmaker or Borrelli (Answer, page 6). We reverse this
rejection essentially for the reasons stated on pages 16-26 of
the Brief. We add the following reasons for completeness and
emphasis.
The examiner finds that Lafon teaches the particle sizes
of powders as recited in the claims on appeal but fails to
suggest powders of the claimed formula and that these powders
can be used to pigment the claimed substrates (Answer, page
6). Accordingly, the examiner applies Choy and Wu for the
teaching that Y O -BaO-CuO powders are superconductors and
23
inherently are a pigment since they absorb light in the
visible range and would be insoluble in most typical pigment
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007