Appeal No. 95-3463
Application No. 08/139,260
In reversing the obviousness rejection of claims 4 and
14, the Board merely stated (Decision, page 9) that “the
examiner has not provided a reason, and we are not aware of
one, for replacing the metal oxide used in Woodard with an
oxide reaction product of zinc and tin disclosed by Gillery
‘771.” The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 14 was,
therefore, reversed because the examiner failed to satisfy the
required duty of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, and not because claims 4 and 14 were deemed to
contain allowable subject matter. Thus, a finding not made in
connection with claims argued by appellant will not be made in
connection with claims not argued by appellant.
Appellant’s request has been granted to the extent that
our decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied
with respect to making any modifications to the decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007