Appeal No. 1997-3307
Application No. 08/121,402
the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)/§ 103
over Burdick ‘908 and ‘909 in view of Knechtel.
Rejection IV
Appellants argue that Bürge also does not
disclose that the polymer must have a bulk density of
at least 0.30 g/cc. (Reply Brief, page 2).
The examiner states it would have been obvious to
express the viscosity set forth in Bürge terms of bulk
density. (Answer, page 8).
The examiner has the initial burden of factually
supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness.
Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. App. & Int.
1985). Here, the examiner does not support his
statement by facts. In this context, we argue with
appellants’ statements made on page 3 that the
examiner should provide documentation showing that a
mathematical relationship exists between viscosity and
bulk density.
Moreover, the examiner has not explained why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have altered the
bulk density of the methylcellulose derivative of
Bürge to a value of 0.30 g/cc or greater.
Hence, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bürge.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007