Appeal No. 1999-0726
Application No. 08/664,432
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Alexander, Earl and Schneider; and
2) Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Alexander, Earl, Schneider, and
Szepes.
Having carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions, we are persuaded that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of unpatentability within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Consequently, we reverse each
of the aforementioned § 103 rejections for substantially the
same reasons set forth in the Brief and the Reply Brief. We
only emphasize that Earl and Schneider, which are drawn to
different processes than that taught by Alexander, would not
have suggested reacting calcium carbide with water present in
the claimed material “for a time and under conditions
effective to form a liquid phase consisting of said material
having a water content less than 0.5 ppm” for the purpose of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007