Appeal No. 1996-2571
Application 08/119,058
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Here, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness of appellant’s claims reciting
glyceride system A which contains (1) specified proportions of
mono-, di-, and triglycerides; and (2) an iodine number of 40-
90.
Accordingly, because we find that the prior art fails to
suggest the claimed invention, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 10 through 12, 21, and 23
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin in
view of Uemura.
B. Rejection over Tuma in view of Scheuffgen.
Our consideration of the record leads us to conclude that
this rejection is not in condition for a decision on appeal.
Accordingly, we vacate the rejection and remand the
application to the examiner to consider the following issues
and take appropriate action not inconsistent with our
findings.
(1) The statement of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on
pages 9 through 11 of the Answer is somewhat confusing.
Although
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007