Appeal No. 96-2425
Application 08/094,933
appellants’ claim 9 and the rejection of that claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bolton. Because
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, see In re Skoner,
517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974), we affirm
the rejection of appellants’ claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Bolton.
Rejections of claims 1-8
The examiner argues that appellants’ partial
neutralization during digestion encompasses partial
neutralization at the very beginning of digestion which, the
examiner states, “is obviously the same as Bolton” (answer,
page 4). This argument is not consistent with Bolton’s
disclosure. Bolton states that “[i]t is a distinct feature of
the invention that the acid level of the reaction mixture is
maintained at a low level at the end of the condensation
stage” (col. 3, lines 27-29) and that “[i]t is a distinct
feature of the invention that the acid level is reduced before
the reaction mixture is digested” (col. 3, lines 58-60).
These excerpts clearly indicate that Bolton’s partial
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007