Ex parte KIHARA et al. - Page 16




                Appeal No. 1998-2147                                                                                                       
                Application No. 08/247,356                                                                                                 


                 acid when exposed to activating radiation.  The decomposable compounds of Crivello,                                       

                 Nguyen-Kim and Elsaesser contain groups which are cleaved by acid.  Uenishi’s                                             

                 dissolution inhibitors are fundamentally different because they form an alkali-soluble                                    

                 substance when subjected to radiation.  Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art                                    

                 would not have been motivated to substitute the dissolution inhibitors of Uenishi ‘389                                    

                 and ‘582 for the decomposable compound of Crivello, Nguyen-Kim or Elsaesser.                                              

                         In the absence of sufficient factual evidence or scientific rationale on the part of                              

                 the Examiner to establish why and how a skilled artisan would have arrived at the subject                                 

                 matter of claim 28 from the applied references, we find that the Examiner has failed to                                   

                 meet the initial burden of establishing the prima facie obviousness of the claimed                                        

                 subject matter.  Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner*s rejection of                                   

                 claim 28.                                                                                                                 

                                                           CONCLUSION                                                                      

                         The rejection of claims 28, 29 and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                      

                 second paragraph is reversed.                                                                                             

                         The rejection of claims 28, 29, 36 and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                  

                 first paragraph is affirmed.                                                                                              




                                                                  -16-                                                                     





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007