Appeal No. 1996-2732
Application 08/241,524
convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight
syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher”).
Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
We note that the appellants have provided two declarations as evidence of
unexpected advantages or properties for the claimed composition(s). In re Papesch, 315
F.2d 381, 386-87, 137 USPQ 43, 47-48 (CCPA 1963). However, an applicant is not
obligated to proffer evidence of nonobviousness until such time as the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff
Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1393, 7 USPQ2d 1222, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, we
have not considered the declaration evidence in our deliberations.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Teddy S. Gron )
Administrative Patent Judge )BOARD OF PATENT
)
)APPEALS AND
)
Carol A. Spiegel )INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007