Ex Parte LEE et al - Page 3


          Appeal No. 2000-1031                                                        
          Application No. 08/591,330                                                  

                              itaconic acid and anhydrides, metal                     
                              salts, esters, amides, or imides of the                 
                              above acids and the level of grafting                   
                              being such that the total amount of                     
                              grafting agent in the total composition                 
                              a) plus b) plus c) is from 0.01 to 3                    
                              weight percent.[1]                                      
               The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as            
          evidence of unpatentability:                                                
          Hughes et al.                5,346,963           Sep. 13, 1994             
               (Hughes)                                                               
               Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 9 on appeal stand rejected under            
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hughes.  (Examiner’s answer            
          of Dec. 23, 1999, paper 23, pages 3-5.)  Also, appealed claims              
          1, 2, and 4 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as            
          unpatentable over Hughes.  (Id.)                                            
               We reverse these rejections.                                           
               The initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of               
          unpatentability rests on the examiner.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d             
          1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(“[T]he                    
          examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or            
          on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of                    
          unpatentability.”)  In this case, it is our judgment that the               
          examiner has not met this initial burden of proof.                          
                                                                                     
               1  Claim 1 as it appears in the appendix to the appeal brief           
          filed Nov. 1, 1999 (paper 21) differs significantly from claim 1            
          of record in the application.                                               
                                          3                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007