Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application No. 08/175,376
Harmon et al. (Harmon) 5,093,058 Mar. 3,
1992
Claims 7 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Harmon in view of Betzner.
We reverse.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Harmon and Betzner. See Answer, page 3-6,
together with the final Office action dated September 5, 1995,
pages 2-3. According to the examiner, Harmon discloses
essentially the claimed process, except for a pressurized
refiner. See Answer, page 3, together with the final Office
action dated September 5, 1995, pages 2-3. The examiner then
relies on Betzner to establish obviousness of using a
pressurized refiner in the process of Harmon. See Answer,
page 3, together with the final Office action dated September
5, 1995, page 3.
Appellants do not challenge the examiner’s holding of
obviousness regarding the employment of a pressurized refiner
in the refining step described in Harmon. See Brief in its
entirety. However, appellants argue that the applied prior
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007