Ex Parte MAZANEC et al - Page 7



             Appeal No. 1998-2325                                                                                 
             Application 08/484,114                                                                               

                    second layer associated with the mixed conducting                                             
                    impervious ceramic is a porous ion conducting layer                                           
                    containing a selective hydrocarbon oxidation catalyst.                                        
             The first layer desirably has on its surface which contacts                                          
             oxygen a thin layer of an oxide of lanthanum, chromium, tin or                                       
             the like (col. 3, line 53 - col. 4, line 2).                                                         
                    The appellants argue that Hazbun discloses only the oxygen                                    
             ion conducting portion of the appellants’ multi-phase mixture                                        
             (brief, page 10).  The examiner argues that Hazbun clearly states                                    
             that his membrane is both electronically conductive and ionically                                    
             conductive, and that the appellants must “demonstrate by facts                                       
             that the instant membrane in question is actually different from                                     
             Hazbun as far as the character of the phase is concerned”                                            
             (answer, page 6).  The examiner has provided no evidence or                                          
             technical reasoning which shows that Hazbun’s membrane includes a                                    
             multi-phase mixture of an electronically-conducting phase and an                                     
             oxygen ion-conductive phase.  The examiner, instead, puts the                                        
             initial burden on the appellants, which is improper.  See Spada,                                     
             911 F.2d at 708, 15 USPQ2d at 1657; King, 801 F.2d at 1327, 231                                      
             USPQ at 138-39.  Because the examiner has not carried the initial                                    
             burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by                                         
             Hazbun, we reverse the examiner’s rejection over this reference.                                     

                                                      -7-7                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007