Appeal No. 1997-0534
Application 08/171,904
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We take claim 1 as illustrative. We have reviewed the
Examiner’s position [Answer, pages 5 to 6 and 7 to 9] and the
Appellants’ position [Brief, pages 8 to 9] and the
Declaration.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s statement that the
“[d]etermination of the specific ingredient amounts would have
been well within the realm of routine experimentation ... .
These parameters would have obviously been selected to
optimize the process conditions and/or the properties of the
final product” [Answer, page 6]. In our view, the Examiner is
indulging in recreating the Appellants’ claimed invention by
employing the Appellants’ invention as a blue print. There is
no basis, scientific logic or other evidence, for this
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007