Appeal No. 95-0044
Application 07/982,999
maintained by appellant, neither reference teaches that the
gelatin produces an organic particulate material as a by-product
that must be removed. Also, neither Herbert nor DiFranco teach
or suggest contacting the electroplating composition with a
macroreticular resin, as required by the appealed claims. While
appellant’s specification readily acknowledges that Meitzner
discloses appellant’s macroreticular resin as useful for removal
of ionic solutes and organic fluids from fluids, Meitzner
provides no suggestion of employing the macroreticular resin in
an electrolytic process of the type claimed. Consequently, we
agree with appellant that the only motivation for utilizing the
macroreticular resin of Meitzner in the processes of Herbert and
DiFranco arises from appellant’s specification. By now it is
axiomatic that the use of such impermissible hindsight cannot
support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007