Ex parte JEZEQUEL et al. - Page 7




          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