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 )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007