Appeal No. 1998-2248
Application No. 08/552,407
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The examiner has not presented
any convincing evidence or reasoning why the combined prior art
references suggest the desirability of making the proposed
modification. The examiner has only found that Paige teaches
that the recycled material must be of the size range of the
virgin feedstock (Answer, page 8, citing Paige, page 22, right
column, second full paragraph). The examiner has not presented
any convincing evidence or reasoning why one of ordinary skill
in the art would desire the particle size range taught by
Hildreth in the process of Paige. See Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Hildreth teaches that “[f]or extraction of vanadium with
gaseous chlorine, it has been established that the material
should be crushed to at least -10 mesh and crushing to -200
mesh is sometimes desirable.” See col. 2, ll. 38-41. Since
Paige is not specific to the extraction of vanadium by
chlorination and the examiner has not presented any convincing
reasons for the combination of references, we determine that
the examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007