Appeal No. 2000-0320 Page 5
Application No. 08/480,082
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
We agree with the appellants that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since the
combined teachings of Viegas and Thompson fail to teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter.
The method claims under appeal all require the steps of
(1) providing an aqueous solution of chitosan and a complexing
agent; (2) providing an aqueous solution of alginate; and
(3) combining the chitosan/complexing agent solution with the
alginate solution. The apparatus claims under appeal all
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007