Appeal No. 1997-3302
Application No. 08/152,338
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
examiner must persuasively explain why the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the proposed modifications. See Fritch, 972
F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84. In the present case, the
examiner has failed to provide persuasive reasons why the
Defendini process should be modified as proposed. The
decision of the examiner, accordingly, is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
JDS:lmb Administrative Patent Judge )
WILLIAM C. MITCHELL
PATENT DEPARTMENT
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
ONE PPG PLACE
PITTSBURGH, PA 15272
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: November 3, 2007