Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
values from the
values permitted in the disclosure. Appellant is entitled to
claim the invention as broadly as the prior art permits.
In summary, the specific ratio values recited in the
appealed claims clearly result from a selection of components
within the range of values permitted by the original
disclosure. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of the
claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (CCPA 1966), and to provide
a reason why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art
would have been led to modify the prior art or to combine
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007