Appeal No. 1997-0699 Page 5
Application No. 08/217,659
In addition to the difficulty we have with the examiner's
reasoning regarding the motivation to combine the disparate
teachings of Clausen and Wurster, we observe that the
examiner's answer does not even address much less specifically
point out where either of the applied references teach or
suggest the use of polypropylene glycol as a binder for use in
a granulation process or composition as claimed herein.
All of the appealed claims require polypropylene glycol
to be present in the composition as a binder or used in the
method for making the composition. On this record, however,
the examiner has not proffered satisfactory supporting
evidence or a convincing rationale that specifically addresses
how the applied references would have taught or suggested a
granulated composition including granules of the specified
size and made of both a pulverulent material as claimed and
the polypropylene glycol binder.
The unsupported generalities relied upon by the examiner
are simply not enough to sustain an obviousness determination.
Where, as here, the factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness is lacking, the proposed rejection
must be reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007