Ex Parte BERG - Page 4



              Appeal No. 2002-0456                                                                   Page 4                 
              Application No. 09/155,995                                                                                    
                     Findings of fact underlying an obviousness rejection, as well as conclusions of                        
              law, must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706                           
              (A),(E) (1994), see Zurko v. Dickinson, 527 U.S. 150, 158, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 1821, 50                           
              USPQ2d 1930, 1934 (1999), and must be supported by substantial evidence within the                            
              record.  See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1775 (Fed. Cir.                             
              2000).  In addition, in order for meaningful appellate review to occur, the examiner must                     
              present a full and reasoned explanation of the rejection.  See, e.g., In re Lee, 277 F.3d                     
              1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  We would further emphasize                                
              what should be self-evident: the examiner must present a full and reasoned explanation                        
              of the rejection in the statement of the rejection, specifically identifying underlying facts                 
              and any supporting evidence, in order for appellants to have a meaningful opportunity                         
              to respond.                                                                                                   
                     The claimed process requires the addition of a “bifunctional” cross-linking agent                      
              to a polysaccharide solution or suspension before the polysaccharides are allowed or                          
              induced to form a gel.  The bifunctional cross-linking agent must have one active site                        
              which reacts with - and substitutes - the polysaccharides before gel formation, and                           
              another site, initially inactive, that is activated (and allowed to react with and cross-link                 
              the polysaccharides) after gel formation.  Having failed to address this aspect of the                        
              invention in the first instance, the examiner belatedly argues that “inspection of                            
              Example 1 of [Lindgren] suggests that the process of the cited reference also does not                        
              produce a gel until after the [substitution] portion of the process has been completed.”                      
                     Nevertheless, Lindgren, at columns 3 and 4, describes a generic process                                
              whereby pre-formed polysaccharide gels are substituted and cross-linked with                                  
              bifunctional cross-linking agents.  Example 1, which immediately follows, describes the                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007