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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007