Appeal No. 1998-1219
Application 08/419,317
suggestions to combine the references. See Micro Chemical
Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 1546, 41
USPQ2d 1238, 1244-45 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(The motivation to
combine references may come from the references themselves,
the knowledge of those skilled in the art, or the nature of
the problem to be solved). For example, the examiner has not
identified why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
desired PSA “without altering the equilibriums” or have been
motivated to make methanol in the process of Keefer, when
combined with Dandekar (Answer, page 4).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that the examiner has failed to present a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Accordingly, all of the examiner’s rejections under
section 103 over the reference evidence of Keefer, Dandekar,
JP ‘436, Sauvion, Stönner and Kikuchi are reversed.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-22 under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. The rejection of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Keefer is reversed. The rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007