Appeal No. 1998-2207
Application No. 08/627,162
points to nothing in this portion or any other portion of
Keem’s disclosure which would have suggested coating materials
in the form of particles, fibers, powders, or particulate
materials as here claimed. The mere fact that the Keem
process could be modified for coating such materials does not
make the modification obvious unless the prior art would have
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In short, the examiner has failed to carry his initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
vis-à-vis the use of Keem’s process for coating materials
of the type of here claimed. It follows that we cannot
sustain the examiner § 103 rejections of the appealed claims
as
being unpatentable over Keem in view of Cairns, Carcia,
Takeshima ‘523, Geodicke and Takeshima ‘922.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007