Appeal No. 1996-3657
Application No. 08/201,517
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Narula taken in combination with
Price and Roth.
Based upon the record before us, we agree with appellants
that the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection at issue.
In our previous decision in parent application 08/201,517
(Appeal No. 95-0032), we reversed a similar rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 which had been based upon the same three prior
art references before us now. That rejection, however,
related to a claim directed to a method of using essentially
the same composition defined by the present claims.
Consistent with our reasoning in our prior decision, we find
that the examiner has also failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness as to the present composition claims.
As we previously found, none of the prior art references
relied upon by the examiner teach or suggest use of any of the
particular hydrophilic glycol, glycol ether, or glycol ether
acetate solvents recited in the claims. We therefore
concluded that there is nothing in the prior art of record
which would have provided a person of ordinary skill in the
art with the requisite motivation to include any of these
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007