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,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007