Appeal No. 1997-3093
Application 08/415,384
1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
In support of his argument, the examiner merely cites
portions of DeSimone (answer, page 4). The examiner does not
compare the process steps and conditions of DeSimone and those
of
appellants and provide technical reasoning as to why the steps
and conditions are sufficiently similar that it reasonably
appears that DeSimone’s process necessarily produces particles
having the size and surfactant coating thickness recited in
appellants’ independent claims. The examiner, therefore, has
not carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner does not present an argument as to why it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the DeSimone process to arrive at the processes recited
in appellants’ claims 1-5, 7 and 11.
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007