Appeal No. 95-4632
Application No. 08/184,675
temperatures. The examiner has not explained how adding water to Pebler's composition of precursor
compounds and organic solvent would have disclosed or suggested dissolving Pebler's mixed oxide per
se in water to form an aqueous solution (Answer paragraph bridging pages 8-9). Neither Vest nor
Chen appear sufficient to remedy this
deficiency in Pebler. Clearly, the examiner does not rely on either of these two secondary references to
disclose or suggest the required step of dissolving the mixed oxide per se in water
to form an aqueous solution of mixed oxide. Therefore, based on this record, we conclude the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in regard to the subject matter as a
whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. & 3. Rejection of claims 3-4, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 as unpatentable over Pebler
in view of Vest and Chen as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9 and 14 above,
and further in view of Nanao.
Rejection of claims 5 and 12 as unpatentable over Pebler in view of
Vest and Chen as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-9 and 14 above
and further in view of Matsuki and Nonaka.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the applied
prior art of Pebler, Vest and Chen under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 10-13, 15 and 16. Dependent claims are nonobvious under4
4We have also reviewed the (a) Nanao, (b) Matsuki and Nonaka references additionally applied in the
rejection of dependent claims (a) 3-4, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 and (b) 5 and 12, respectively, but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of Pebler, Vest and Chen discussed above regarding claim 1.
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007