Appeal No. 95-4250 Page 8
Application No. 08/086,395
at the time the invention was made to add an oxyethylene
organosilane to the water phase in forming the composition of
Yoneyama since Legrow teaches such organosilane compounds are
clear and colorless and would be useful in cosmetics and
Yoneyama discloses adding water soluble additives to the
aqueous phase (answer, pages 7-9).
Appellant's basic argument with respect to the § 103
rejection appears to be that the applied references do not
suggest the substitution of an organosilane compound as claimed
herein for any of the constituents of the composition of
Yoneyama such as the silicone compounds thereof.
We note that the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore,
the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some
objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have
led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007