Ex parte GAIL S. BAZZANO - Page 3

          Appeal No. 95-4713                                                          
          Application 07/856,157                                                      

          and Marks.                                                                  

               Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation              
          and review of the following materials:                                      
               (1) The instant specification, including all of the claims             
          on appeal;                                                                  
               (2) Appellant’s main Brief and Reply Brief before the Board;           
               (3) The Examiner’s Answer and the communication mailed by              
          the examiner August 1, 1995; and                                            
               (4) The above-cited references relied on by the examiner.              
               On consideration of the record, including the above-listed             
          materials, we reverse the  103 rejection based on the combined             
          disclosures of Vishnupad and Marks.                                         


               The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima            
          facie case of obviousness.  In an effort to discharge that burden           
          here, the examiner finds that Vishnupad discloses every component           
          of appellant’s composition except for the antioxidant recited in            
          claim 1 (d).  As stated in the Examiner’s Answer, page 3, last              
          paragraph, “[t]he claims differ [from Vishnupad] in the                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007