Appeal No. 2002-0866
Application No. 09/262,471
recited in claim 1. See the Answer, pages 3-5. The examiner,
however, does not explain why and how one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to a mixture corresponding to the
mixture recited in claim 1. Due to the examiner’s incorrect
assumptions regarding the teachings of Delft as indicated supra,
the examiner’s reasons for obviousness are incomplete.
Accordingly, we are constrained to procedurally reverse this
rejection.
We want to make clear, however, that this is a technical
reversal, rather than one based upon the merits of the applied
prior art references. The sufficiency of the prior art teachings
have not been ascertained at this time because the examiner’s
Section 103 rejection is based on incorrect assumptions as
indicated supra.
REMAND ORDER
For the findings of fact set forth above and in the Answer,
we determine that Delft would have rendered the subject matter
defined by at least claims 1, 17 and 20 prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 and that Delft’s working Examples XXIII-XXVII represent
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007