Ex parte KETCHAM et al. - Page 14




                Appeal No. 1997-0448                                                                                                     
                Application No. 08/327,980                                                                                               


                heat, by avoiding any excess of lime to prevent formation of soluble molybdates,  and extends this19                                 

                process to forming other molybdates of alkaline earths and of magnesium.       20                                        

                        According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to                    

                have replaced the lime of Sohn with the magnesium hydroxide of GB ‘472 because the substitution of                       

                art recognized equivalents as shown by GB ‘472 would have been within the level of ordinary skill in                     

                the art” (answer, page 6).   Again, the examiner has not explained how one of ordinary skill in the art                  

                would have obtained molybdenum trioxide from calcium molybdate or magnesium molybdate,                                   

                especially given Vertes’ disclosure that calcination is not a universally applicable method of converting                

                any and all molybdates to molybdenum trioxide.  The examiner has not pointed out, and we do not find,                    

                where Barry, Vertes, Chiola, Sohn and/or GB ’472 disclose or suggest how to obtain molybdenum                            

                trioxide from calcium molybdate.  Thus, we conclude that the examiner has not carried his burden of                      

                establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 20 and 21 over Barry in view of Vertes and                      

                Chiola, taken further in view of Sohn, and further in view of GB ‘472..                                                  

                                                            CONCLUSION                                                                   

                        To summarize, the decision of the examiner (I) to reject claims 1-7 and 10-19 under 35 U.S.C.                    

                 103 as being unpatentable over Barry in view of Vertes and Chiola, (II) to reject claims 20 and 21                     



                        19See GB ‘472, page 1, lines 53-75.                                                                              
                        20See GB ‘472, page 2, lines 1-3.                                                                                
                                                                 - 14 -                                                                  





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007