Appeal No. 97-0480
Application No. 07/858,818
particles. We agree with appellants that nothing in Klein makes up for the deficiencies in Sanford
(Brief, page 11). We also agree with appellants that selection of an appropriate force to accelerate a
layer of particles on carrier sheet, e.g., an electric discharge-induced shock wave, depends upon
selecting a carrier sheet as the “larger body” in Sanford to begin with (Brief, pages 16-17).
Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness as to the claimed invention which requires a movable carrier sheet.
With regard to the discussion of unexpected results presented in the McCabe Declaration
executed November 13, 1991, and submitted with the response (Paper no. 7) filed January 7, 1993
(Brief, pages 18-21), having concluded that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness from the teachings of the prior art, we need not reach the sufficiency of this rebuttal
evidence.
II. Provisional rejection of claims 10, 13, 14 and 16 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-16, 19, 21-24, 37-40
and 42 of copending application no. 07/931,882 in view of Sanford “R.”
According to appellants, since all of the claimed subject matter is entitled to an effective filing
date of December 05, 1986 (based upon a priority claim to USSN 06/938,570 under
35 U.S.C. § 120 which the examiner acknowledged in the final Office action mailed
Page 10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007