Appeal No. 1997-1663 Page 7
Application No. 08/448,053
rotating mixer inlet surface, the rotating mixer outlet
surface and the connecting flow channel, have not been
adequately identified by the examiner.
With respect to the alternative § 103 rejections, the
examiner's representations fall significantly short of
establishing why one having ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to the claimed invention by the teachings or
suggestions found in each of the separately applied
references, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
contained in such teachings or suggestions. See In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994, 217 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Manifestly, the examiner's unsupported and generalized
statements (answer, pages 4 and 5) regarding the obviousness
of any apparatus distinctions such as the reactant inlet
points of appellants' process over the applied prior art are
inadequate to establish the prima facie obviousness of the
claimed process. It is well settled that a legal conclusion
of obviousness must be supported by facts, not speculation.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007