Appeal No. 1996-2357
Application 08/124,617
a
chemical theory upon which a prima facie case of obviousness
of a
compound may rest.” In re Grose, 592 F.2d 1161, 1167-68, 201
USPQ 57, 63 (CCPA 1979).
The examiner has not explained why Fujii’s compounds are
adjacent homologs of the compounds disclosed by Boustany or
Kleiman, or provided evidentiary support which shows that any
structural similarity between Fujii’s compounds and those of
Boustany or Kleiman is sufficient that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that
Fujii’s compounds, like those of Boustany or Kleiman, would be
useful as vulcanization accelerators. Consequently,
regardless of the meaning of R to R in appellants’ claims, we1 4
are able to determine that the examiner has not carried his
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellants’ claimed invention over the combined teachings of
either Boustany or Kleiman, taken with Fujii. Accordingly, we
reverse on the merits the rejections over these combinations
of references.
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007