Appeal No. 95-0678
Application 07/938,960
cottonseed (specification, page 6, lines 10-14), and we further
note that whether appellant’s process produces an unexpected
result becomes an issue only when the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
For the above reasons, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the invention recited in
appellant’s claim 10. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of this claim and claims 11-20 which depend from it is
reversed.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the
ground that the claimed invention is directed toward non-
statutory subject matter, and of claims 10-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hinkes taken with Redenbaugh,
are reversed. The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hinkes taken with Redenbaugh is
affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007