Ex parte STROM et al. - Page 5


                     Appeal No.  2001-0893                                                                                                      
                     Application No.  08/968,905                                                                                                

                     Capon does not provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with an expectation the                                       
                     binding partner’s half-life could be extended 24 hours while retaining its full activity.                                  
                             “When prima facie obviousness is established and evidence is submitted in                                          
                     rebuttal, the decision-maker must start over.”  In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,                                       
                     189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).  “If a prima facie case is made in the first                                                
                     instance, and if the applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether                                             
                     buttressed by experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the                                      
                     matter are to be reweighed.”  In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,                                             
                     686 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  In maintaining a rejection in view of appellants’ unexpected                                        
                     results “[t]he Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its                                   
                     rejection.  It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to                                   
                     speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply                                                   
                     deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ                                            
                     173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).                                                                  
                             In our opinion, the examiner failed to provide the evidence necessary to                                           
                     maintain a prima facie case of obviousness in view of appellants’ evidence of                                              
                     unexpected results.  Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 16, 18 and                                            












                                                                       5                                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007