Appeal No. 1996-2253 Page 6
Application No. 08/199,907
master batch solution and heating the diluted solution in the
Pinnavaia reference. The examiner points to no prior art
indicating that such a dilution process step is conventional
in the art of pillarizing clay. The examiner gives us no
rationale as to why such dilution and heating are obvious
matters of process choice and we can find no basis for coming
to that conclusion.
For the above reasons, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
process claims 1, 3-17, and 20-23. We note that a showing of
new or nonobvious results is not required for patentability
when the evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie
case.
Product Claims 2, 17, and 24
With respect to product claims 2, 17, and 24, we note
that these claims are in product-by-process format, but have
not been separately addressed by the examiner. Rather the
examiner has grouped these claims with the method claims.
These claims are of a very different scope and require a
separate analysis from those of the method.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007