Appeal No. 1996-0249 Page 7
Application No. 08/076,709
presented, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the other
disclosed resins of Johnson such as methylcellulose (column 4,
lines 25-32), depending on the degree or type of protection
desired. Methylcellulose would have been reasonably expected
to have a gelation temperature as called for in the appealed
claims as further explained by the Dow brochure (final
rejection, page 3).
In view of the above, we find ourselves in agreement with
the examiner that the applied prior art would have rendered
the appealed claims prima facie obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Moreover, appellant's arguments in the brief
are not convincing of any reversible error on the examiner's
part in reaching an obviousness conclusion.
In particular, appellant urges that the teachings of
Johnson would not lead one skilled in the art to the "claimed
core and shell combination" (brief, page 4) and argues that
the applied prior art is not concerned with the problems faced
by the inventor regarding retort protection (brief, page 5).
We do not find these arguments convincing for the reasons
set forth above. In our view, Johnson furnishes ample
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007