Appeal No. 2006-0972
Application No. 10/380,280
is subject to a treatment similar to the organic volatile
removing methods described in the specification. See, e.g., In
re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
However, on this record, the examiner has done neither. Thus, it
cannot be said that the examiner has established a prima facie
case of unpatentability with regard to the claimed subject matter
by merely referring to the structural properties and raw
materials of polystyrene foams. See Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d
1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1981) (“[T]he examiner must
provide some evidence or scientific reasoning to establish the
reasonableness of the examiner’s belief that the [claimed]...
limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2
through 5, 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 103(a).
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007