Appeal No. 1997-1787
Application 08/296,628
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rhinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The examiner has the burden to present
factual basis supporting the conclusion that a prima facie case exists. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967); In re Lunsford, 357 F.2d 385, 392, 148 USPQ 721, 726
(CCPA 1966); In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785, 788, 165 USPQ 570, 572 (CCPA 1970). In failing to
demonstrate that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success
in substituting aliphatic isocyanate for aromatic isocyanate, the examiner has not met the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
When this application returns to the jurisdiction of the examiner, applicant and the examiner
may wish to consider the relevance of U.S. patent 4,864,025.
REVERSED
)
FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007