Appeal No. 96-3862
Application No. 08/189,861
Moreover, we find that the examiner's alternative
rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Braslaw is sustainable. Braslaw discloses a
process that includes substantially the same process steps as
appellants' claimed process as indicated above. Thus,
appellants' arguments regarding the obviousness/non-
obviousness of adding additional reaction steps to the process
of Braslaw (brief, page 5) are not convincing since the
propriety of the rejection does not turn on adding additional
reaction steps to Braslaw. Rather, the rejection is premised
on the method step teachings already described by Braslaw
including the lower temperature rotating film evaporation step
as establishing the prima facie case of obviousness as
indicated above. Accordingly, in addition to affirming the
examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 as being anticipated by
Braslaw under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we also agree with the examiner
that appellants' claimed method would have been prima facie
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Braslaw's process. See In
re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433-434 (CCPA 1977).
Accordingly, we also affirm the alternative § 103 rejection
advanced by the examiner.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007