Appeal No. 2001-0727
Application No. 08/215,446
rejection in the answer as an oversight. However, for the
reasons set forth at page 17 of appellant's brief, we will
reverse the examiner's rejection. In our view, the examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand the scope of the claim language when
it is read in light of the present specification and state of the
prior art.
We will also not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
1-10 under § 103 over Block in view of Chandler. It seems to be
the examiner's position that Block only fails to teach the
aluminum component of the claimed treatment composition.
However, as properly pointed out by appellant, the treatment
solution of Block also does not contain the claimed phosphoric
acid. Rather, Block discloses an organophosphorus ester that "is
free of acid groups or the corresponding salts thereof" (column
4, lines 50 and 51). Consequently, although Chandler '232
discloses a treatment composition comprising aluminum phosphate,
the examiner has not explained how the combined teachings of
Block and Chandler would have made the claimed composition,
comprising phosphoric acid, obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007