Appeal No. 1996-2928
Application 08/313,727
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brannen combined with Elliott.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the examiner
and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not well founded.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner's rejection.
The Rejection under § 103
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner relies upon a combination of two references to
reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The basic premise of
the rejection is that the primary reference to Brannen discloses a metal complex comprising a transition
metal, a polyamine, and an acid component which can be a phosphoric acid or a fatty acid. Similarly
the secondary reference to Elliott teaches a metal complex comprising an amine and organic acid
selected from a group of acids including a carboxylic acid and a phosphoric acid. Since phosphorous
and fatty acids are taught in the alternative, the combination of metal amine, phosphorous and fatty acid
in complex form would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Answer, pages
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007