Appeal No. 95-2700
Application 07/956,018
obviousness.
While a reaction process may be unpatentable even when
both the starting material and the product are not disclosed
in the prior art, it is well settled that each case must be
decided on its own particular facts. In re Durden, Jr. 763
F.2d 1406, 1410, 226 USPQ 359, 361 (Fed. Cir 1985). Also, no
per se rule exists that a claimed process is obvious if the
examiner, as here, shows that the prior art discloses "the
same general process
using "similar" starting materials". In re Ochiai 71 F.3d
1565, 1570, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the
present case, as in Ochiai, we find, for the reasons set forth
above, that the examiner has not established the obviousness
of the claimed process.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained
to reverse the examiner's rejection.
REVERSED
MARY F. DOWNEY )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007