Appeal No. 1996-3659
Application No. 08/237,484
coated zeolites. The examiner’s hypothesis that the use of
zeolite would have been obvious in the process of Venkatesan
is unsupported by facts. There is no evidentiary basis for
choosing a zeolite as opposed to other complex materials which
are specifically disclosed. Furthermore, the additional
requirement of a pulsed laser beam required by the claimed
subject matter is neither disclosed nor suggested in
Venkatesan.
The examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan
confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no
knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements
from the cited prior art references for a combination in the
manner claimed. We determine that there is no reason,
suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in the
manner proposed by the examiner. Accordingly, the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. See In
re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357-1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Section 102(e) Rejection over Bals
Bals discloses a piezoelectric substrate having a
coating of zeolite deposited thereon by plasma deposition,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007