Appeal No. 96-1971
Application 07/914,388
no reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner. Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .
Based upon the above considerations, the use of the formulations of either Carson or Jones fails
to satisfy the requirement of appellant’s claimed subject matter. Consequently, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we need not address the
experimental results relied upon by appellants. See Brief, pages 15 - 20. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 22, 24 through 28, 70, 71, 74, and 75 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duffield in view of Jones and Carson is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007