Appeal No. 97-2174 Application No. 08/214,763 argument in his answer. Thus, even if the applied references were combined as proposed in the rejection, it is unclear to us and the examiner has not explained how the resulting combination would satisfy the dispersing aid limitations defined by the claims on appeal. In light of the foregoing, we also cannot sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 1 through 24 as being unpatentable over Moris in view of the Japanese reference. The decision of the examiner is reversed. REVERSED John D. Smith ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) Bradley R. Garris ) BOARD OF PATENT Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) Thomas A. Waltz ) 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007