Appeal No. 1995-4810
Application No. 08/011,499
does not disclose either of these properties taught to be
improved in Ohara and Williams. The Abstract teaches that
good adhesion is a desired property, as well as the ability of
the composition to deter water seepage between the interfaces
of the polymer and wire (see the Abstract, last four lines).
Therefore we determine that the examiner has failed to present
any reason or motivation for the combination of the secondary
references to Ohara and Williams with the primary reference of
the Abstract.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus
we need not reach the issue of the sufficiency of appellants’
showing of unexpected results. See the Brief, pages 4-5 and
9, and the Table on page 9 of the specification. See In re
Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 4-10
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Abstract
in view of Ohara and Williams is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007