Ex parte PURINTON et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 97-1417                                                          
          Application No. 08/273,040                                                  


          The examiner has failed to explain how the organic                          
          compositions disclosed in Liimatta provide an elemental                     
          carbon-free material under pyrolysis.  Absent a more factually              
          specific statement of the rejection, we cannot sustain the                  
          rejection of claims 1-19 and 21  under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as2                                            
          being unpatentable over the combination of Boyd and Liimatta.               
          See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444                
          (Fed. Cir. 1992) (the examiner bears the initial burden of                  
          presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability).                          







               Based on the record before us, the decision of the                     
          examiner is reversed.                                                       
                                      REVERSED                                        





               2    Claims 2-19 and 21 are dependent on independent                   
          claim 1.  See 37 CFR § 1.75(c) ("Claims in dependent form                   
          shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim              
          incorporated by reference into the dependent claim.").                      
                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007