Ex Parte Wollmann et al - Page 3


                Appeal No.  2005-0222                                                  Page 3                  
                Application No.  09/923,629                                                                    

                esters in the presence of a lower alcohol and basic catalyst; removal of the                   
                excess alcohol, basic catalyst, fatty acid alkyl ester and glycerol; and conversion            
                of the sterol esters in the product obtained by transesterification would be                   
                obvious to the skilled artisan in the art at the time of the invention.”  Examiner’s           
                Answer, page 4.                                                                                
                      The rejection concludes:                                                                 
                             The instant claims differ by reciting the transesterification of                  
                      the sterol esters is at a temperature of from 115°C to 145°C and a                       
                      pressure of from 2 to 10 bar for a period of from 3 to 10 hours.                         
                      However (a) [Hunt ’252] teach[es] said transesterification can be                        
                      done at temperatures between about 150°C and about 240°C and                             
                      in reaction times of 10 minutes or more, such as 1 to about 3 hours                      
                      under pressure and (b) optimization of the reaction by variation in                      
                      reaction conditions such as, temperature, pressure and/or reaction                       
                      time is with[in] [sic] the level of skill of the ordinary artisan.  The                  
                      motivation to make changes to the reaction conditions would be                           
                      based on the desire to obtain optimum conditions resulting in                            
                      increase[d] [sic] yield of the desired product.  Thus, the claimed                       
                      process would have been obvious based on prior art teachings and                         
                      the level of skill of ordinary artisan in the art at the time of the                     
                      invention.                                                                               
                Id. at 4-5 (emphasis in original).                                                             
                      The burden is on the examiner to set forth a prima facie case of                         
                obviousness.  See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-99                      
                (Fed. Cir. 1988).  “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual            
                basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the             
                invention from the prior art.  In making this evaluation, all facts must be                    
                considered.  The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis             
                for its rejection.  It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable,         
                resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007