Appeal No. 2002-0190
Application No. 09/149,018
has not established that the thickness of McMordie’s removed
undiffused coating material necessarily is the same as that of
the layer removed during the appellants’ desulfurization method,
or that McMordie’s disclosure of removing undiffused coating
residues would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, the particular thickness of the removed layer recited in
the appellants’ claim 17.
The examiner does not rely upon Rickerby or the appellants’
admitted prior art for a teaching which remedies the deficiency
in McMordie as to claim 1, from which claims 6-8 and 10 directly
or indirectly depend, or claim 17.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the methods recited in the appellants’ claims 6-8, 10 and 17-19.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007