Appeal No. 1997-0330
Application 08/493,758
conducted, appellants have not established unexpected
results for the claimed electrolyte to overcome the prima
facie case. We therefore affirm the '103 rejection of
claim 1 over Kirman.
Anticipation and Obviousness of Claim 3
We reverse the '102 rejection as to claim 3 because
this claim requires that the fluoride complexes of claim
1 be Na SiF or KBF . Kirman does not disclose these2 6 4
complexes and therefore lacks the requisite identity for
anticipating the claim.
There is also no prima facie case of obviousness
under '103 because there is no suggestion in Kirman, and
no other cited art, that would guide one of ordinary
skill to choose these types of complex salts. We agree
with appellants (brief, p.11, first paragraph) that
Kirman teaches acids as fluoride ion sources and not
salts and does not suggest employing one over the other.
While this argument does not bear on claim 1 where both
acids and salts are covered, claim 3 is specifically
directed to salts. Examiner bears the burden of showing
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007