Appeal No. 1997-0646
Application 08/383,667
explained, however, why Carter would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, use of poly(vinyl alcohol)
and poly(ethylene oxide) in combination such that the
dispersion recited in appellants’ claim 1 is obtained. The
examiner, therefore, has not carried her burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of this claim and claims 3, 5-
13, 15, 22-26 and 28 which depend, directly or indirectly,
therefrom.
DECISION
The rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 22-26 and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Carter, are reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007