Appeal No. 1998-1306
Application 08/429,326
Finally, the appellants argue that appealed independent
claim 17 requires the sorptive purification method defined therein to
occur prior to bleaching whereas the composition of Brooks is taught
for use exclusively in a method for bleaching oils. In responding to
this argument, the examiner states that "no patentable distinction is
seen as the method is almost the same" (answer, page 6). From our
perspective, this statement by the examiner constitutes an implicit
acknowledgment that the
respective methods claimed by the appellants and disclosed by Brooks
are not the same and thus, in fact, are different. Yet, the examiner
has not even proposed a modification to the method of Brooks which
would eliminate this difference. As a consequence, we must conclude
that yet again the examiner has failed to carry her burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
independent method claim 17 and claims 18-20 which depend therefrom.
For the reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of appealed claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable over Brooks in view of Audeh.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007