Appeal No. 1997-3337
Application No. 08/189,899
by Stiff is the same as the ignition promoter of claim 17 and
contained in the fuel composition of claim 24.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief,
we determine that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is
not supported by facts. “Where the legal conclusion [of
obviousness] is not supported by facts it cannot stand.” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-
17, 19, 22-28 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Stiff, Muller ‘027, Muller ‘881 and
Waniczek is reversed.
OTHER ISSUES
Appellants have also sought review of the Examiner’
objection to the introduction of new matter to the
specification under 35 U.S.C. § 132. (Brief, page 6). The
Board does not have jurisdiction to hear or decide issues
pertaining to objections to the specification under 35 U.S.C.
§ 132. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.191.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007