Appeal No. 95-3640
Application 08/147,742
Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we need not address the Hendley declaration
(filed June 2, 1994, paper no. 5). See In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the
ground that the claimed invention lacks patentable utility,
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the ground that the
specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure, and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Merck Index,
Mazur, Andersen and Kirschner, are reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007