Appeal No. 95-3765
Application No. 08/084,388
to that required to form the metal soap (see column 3, lines
18-22). Furthermore, this teaching in Rieber of increasing
the speed of the saponification reaction by employing an
excess of the metal oxide/hydroxide/carbonate does not teach
the use of this metal as a binder. Rieber specifically
teaches that his invention is accomplished “without the use of
binding agents” (column 2, lines 30-35). The excess metal
oxide/hydroxide/carbonate is used to react with previously
unreacted fatty acid to drive the reaction to completion and
thus does not appear in the final granulate (see Example 18 in
column 8). Finally, the examiner fails to establish that the
granulate of Rieber is equivalent to the metal soap pellet
required by the subject matter on appeal. Therefore the
requirements of appealed claim 1 are not shown or suggested by
Rieber.
Our reviewing court has stated “[w]here the legal
conclusion [of obviousness] is not supported by facts it
cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). For
the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 through 28
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007