Appeal No. 96-3824
Application No. 08/311,635
and 33), 10.6 (column 14, line 62) and 6.0 (column 15, line
8). The examiner has failed to express what would have
motivated the person of ordinary skill in the art to select
appellant's particular ingredients and use them at a pH
ranging from 11 to 12 based on Wingender or Wingender
considered with Nakamura. Indeed, while it appears from the
voluminous prior art cited in this application that
appellant's individual ingredients are, per se, known as
useful additives for redox amplifying solutions in general,
nothing in the record to which our attention has been directed
suggests appellant's particular pH, particularly claimed
ingredients or particular amounts of ingredients.
For all the above reasons, we find the examiner has
failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the appealed subject matter. Accordingly, it is
unnecessary to discuss the relevance of appellant's alleged
evidence of unexpected or surprising results since evidence of
nonobviousness is only weighed against evidence which
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007