Appeal No. 1996-2918
Application 08/164,879
artisan.” These arguments are not well taken because the
examiner has not explained where Block discloses, or would
have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, a
pharmaceutical or clinical use of propanethial S-oxide.
Moreover, appellant does not merely recite a container but,
rather, recites a container having a means for microscopic
dispensing. The examiner has not explained why Block would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
placing propanethial S-oxide in such a container.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention recited in any of appellant’s
claims. Consequently, we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Block is reversed.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007