Appeal No. 1996-1784
Application 08/131,037
examiner has not explained why Yada and Bartissol would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use in
the Martens process of higher intensity radiation than that
used by Martens even
though Martens teaches that in his process, higher radiation
causes the molecular weight of the polymer to be so low that
it is of little value for Martens’ intended use (col. 4, lines
29-37).
The examiner argues that “[t]he combination of prior art
teaches a two step irradiation process and it is well within
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize
the
expected results of adjusting irradiation conditions by the
teachings of the prior art of record to the effect of such
irradiation and through routine experimentation” (answer,
pages 4-5).
This is a vague argument which does not address the facts
of the present case. In order for a prima facie case of
obviousness to be established, the teachings from the prior
art itself must appear to have suggested the claimed subject
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007