Appeal No. 1997-2010 Application No. 08/332,671 a linkage between the two phosphate groups (see appellants’ specification, page 3, lines 1-16). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, aware of the problem and solution taught by Nichols, would not have been motivated to use the teachings of Nichols in the different process as claimed by appellants. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. � 103 as unpatentable over Nichols is reversed. Remand to the Examiner Upon a review of the record, this application is remanded to the examiner for appropriate action as noted below. The examiner’s rejection in Paper No. 3, dated April 4, 1995, included a rejection of all the pending claims under � 103 as unpatentable over Albright (U.S. Patent No. 4,133,846, issued Jan. 9, 1979) or Zama (U.S. Patent No. 4,343,732, issued Aug. 10, 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007