Appeal No. 96-2102
Application No. 08/119,205
appellants’ general viewpoint that the examiner has failed to
establish on this record a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the amounts of BPAM required by appealed claim
9. Indeed, we find in the Answer no exposition by the
examiner as to why the applied references would have suggested
such amounts to an artisan with ordinary skill.
For the above stated reasons, the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 9 through 37 and 39 as being unpatentable
over Hense in view of Kozuka cannot be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007