Appeal No. 1997-0229
Application No. 08/039,260
patents in view of the teaching found in Bauman, none of the
applied prior art references provide any teaching or
suggestion to carry out step d) as recited in appealed claim
11. In particular, the examiner has not pointed to, and we do
not find, any teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art
references regarding the fractional separation of an
“agglomerate component” as recited in appealed claim 11. Nor
has the examiner explained why the appellants’ claim elements
pertaining to the physical attributes of the hydrocyclone(s)
and the mesh sizes would have been prima facie obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art over the applied prior
art references.
On this record, we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness against appealed
claim 11 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since
appealed claims 12 through 14 and 16 all depend from claim 11,
it follows then that the subject matter of these claims would
also not have been obvious over the applied prior art
references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007