Appeal No. 95-2008
Application No. 08/032,178
disclose or suggest the specific epoxy resin starting
materials of appealed claim 13, part (A).
The applied prior art references contain nothing to
support the examiner’s conclusion that the particular process
of appealed claim 13 would have been obvious. See In re
Ochiai, supra. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 13 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paar in view of Anderson
is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007