Appeal No. 1997-1461
Application 08/388,915
admissions concerning the teachings of Chadwick taken with
Burgie and Ritzer. Claims 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the above
references and further in view of Kotval.
We reverse.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has the initial
burden under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re Passaic, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In
determining the propriety of the PTO case for obviousness in
the first instance, it is necessary to ascertain whether or
not the reference(s) teachings would appear to be sufficient
for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the
references before him to make the proposed substitution,
combination or modification. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
It is well known to react an organohalide with a silicon
metalloid in the presence of a suitable catalyst to form
monosilanes (Chadwick, column 1, lines 27-30). This process
is referred to as the “Direct Process.” Id. This process, in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007