Appeal No. 1996-3214 Page 8
Application No. 08/195,897
Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
In the case before us, the examiner has not provided a
single convincing reason, based on the applied references, or
general knowledge, as to why it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed method of
forming a catalyst in situ as claimed herein. Indeed, in
reviewing the references relied on by the examiner in this
appeal, we cannot discern a supportable basis on which a
conclusion of obviousness may be reached consistent with the
examiner's rejection.
In conclusion, the examiner has not discharged the initial
burden of explaining how the combined disclosures of the
applied references would have rendered the claimed subject
matter before us obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103. Accordingly, the stated rejection cannot be sustained.
Rejection of Claims 14-20 Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim that which applicants regard as invention. The relevant
inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007