Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
and TEOG recited in the claims, the examiner also indicates
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to optimize the
SOG composition to meet the claimed invention [answer, pages
3-4].
This rejection was made earlier in the prosecution of
this application, but it was removed when appellant submitted
arguments and a declaration to support his position that the
mass values set forth in Lehrer could not meet the composition
percentages recited in the appealed claims. The rejection has
been reintroduced in the answer without any discussion of the
arguments and evidence previously submitted by appellant.
Appellant argues that the examiner does not provide a prima
facie case of obviousness since the rejection does not respond
to the arguments and evidence provided earlier by appellant
[reply brief, pages 2-3]. Appellant also argues that the
claimed percentages do not result from a mere obvious
optimization of the Lehrer teachings.
We agree with appellant for the reasons presented by
him. Although it would have been easier to use density values
to simply convert the grams in Lehrer to volume percentages,
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007