Appeal No. 1997-1667
Application No. 08/226,819
do not inherently possess the properties of the here claimed
products/materials.
Under the circumstances recounted above, we consider the
examiner’s nonobviousness conclusion based upon Baiker alone
to be without support. As a result, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 6 through 10, 16
through 20 and 25 through 38 as being unpatentable over
Baiker.
Furthermore, the above discussed deficiencies of Baiker
plainly are not supplied by the secondary references to Ghosh
and Dougherty. Thus, even assuming it would have been obvious
to combine Baiker with these secondary references, the result
of this combination would not correspond to the subject matter
defined by the rejected claims. It follows that we also
cannot sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of claim
12 as being unpatentable over Baiker in view of Ghosh or his
corresponding rejection of claims 22 through 24 as being
unpatentable over Baiker in view of Dougherty.
Summary
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007