Appeal No. 95-0954
Application 08/058,092
it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use a carrier which is similar to
polystyrene in structure, such as ECO-FOAM, but is water
soluble and biodegradable, so that the carrier will dissolve
in water and biodegrade in a landfill.
Appellant’s separate arguments (brief, pages 9-10)
directed toward, as groups, claims 1-6, claims 7-9, claims 10-
15, and claim 16 are addressed in the above discussion.
For the above reasons, we conclude, based on the
preponderance of the evidence and argument in the record, that
appellant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Because this conclusion is based on rationale which is
substantially different than that advanced by the examiner, we
denominate this affirmance as involving a new ground of
rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that appellant’s claim 16 is vague
and indefinite because it is not clear how the last step in
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007