Ex parte DALUISE - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1997-2275                                                        
          Application No. 08/390,281                                                  

          columns 7 and 8 of the Coke patent) so as to employ relatively              
          small granular particles.                                                   
               In essence, the deficiency of the examiner’s rejection                 
          lies in the fact that none of the applied references including              
          Sorathia contains any teaching or suggestion of avoiding a                  
          clog-problem of the type under consideration by separately                  
          introducing particulate material and the binder therefor into               
          a nozzle where these ingredients are combined into a stream                 
          which is then dispensed from the nozzle in accordance with the              
          here claimed method.  It is only the appellant’s own                        
          disclosure which contains any such teaching.  It is reasonably              
          apparent, therefore, that the examiner’s rejection is based                 
          upon impermissible hindsight derived from the appellant’s own               
          disclosure rather than a teaching, suggestion or incentive                  
          derived from the applied prior art.  W.L. Gore & Assocs. v.                 
          Garlock, Inc., 741 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-313                   
          (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, U.S. 851 (1984).                            
               Under the circumstances recounted above, we cannot                     
          sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of the appealed                
          claims as being unpatentable over Coke in view of Sorathia and              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007