Appeal No. 1998-1866 Application 08/406,883 the ball was back in the examiner’s side of the court to supply a fact-based explanation why appellants’ position in regard to the laccase activity of the respective strains was incorrect. We have not found such an explanation on this record. Absent such a fact-based explanation, we reverse the examiner’s 102 rejection as well as the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision of the examiner is reversed. REVERSED ) William F. Smith ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT Douglas W. Robinson ) Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) ) INTERFERENCES ) Demetra J. Mills ) Administrative Patent Judge ) 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007