Appeal No. 1996-3990 Page 4 Application No. 08/145,239 extraction. In our view, a reasonably supportable basis for combining the teachings of the references has not come to light in the examiner's futile attempt to arrive at the claimed invention from the disparate teachings of the applied references. Moreover, even if the teachings of the admitted prior art and Shanton were combinable, the examiner has not established that the claimed composition would result as evident from the discussion that follows. Another theory advanced by the examiner in support of the rejection is that Shanton alone may furnish sufficient evidence to render the claimed composition "... substantially met..." (answer, page 2) and hence obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, the examiner has not furnished a convincing explanation as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to pick a color developer corresponding to the claimed oxime and a solvent corresponding to the claimed ester for use in forming the record material of Shanton so as to somehow arrive at the claimed composition components from among the many choices for the developer and solvent disclosed by Shanton.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007