Appeal No. 1997-1454
Application No. 07/931,632
5. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being obvious from Komuro in view of Takano.
6. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being obvious from Komuro in view of Takano and
Koinuma.
Based upon the record before us, we reverse all of the
rejections at issue essentially for the reasons stated in
appellants' Brief. We add the following remarks for emphases.
In deciding questions arising under any one of statutory
sections 102, 103 or 112, initially we look to see whether the
examiner has established a prima facie case by providing
factual evidence or a cogent technical rationale to support
his position. Here we find that the examiner's Answer is
fatally deficient in this regard.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections, the
examiner has failed to provide a reasonable basis for
concluding that the terms "metal-atom vacancy" and "vacancies"
are either indefinite or lack enabling and descriptive support
in the specification. In reaching such conclusions, the
examiner has apparently overlooked or ignored the fact that
the terms "metal-atom vacancy" and "vacancies", as used in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007