Appeal No. 96-2425
Application 08/094,933
neutralization takes place before, not during, the digestion
stage. As pointed out by appellants (reply brief, page 3),
“before” is not “during”, and the examiner has not explained
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Bolton’s process such that the partial neutralization takes
place during the digestion stage.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not
carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the process recited in any of appellants’
claims 1-8. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Similarly, because examiner has
not explained why the partial neutralization recited in
Bolton’s claims at the condensation stage would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, partial
neutralization during the
digestion stage, we do not sustain the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of appellants’ claims 1-8.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-8 under the judicially created
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007