Appeal No. 1998-2248
Application No. 08/552,407
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the Fiand Declaration under
37 CFR § 1.132 (Exhibit G attached to the Brief) need not be
considered. See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d
1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Oppegaard reference was applied by the examiner to
show that drying of leached material before recycling was known
in an “analogous process” (Answer, pages 9-10). Therefore
Oppegaard does not remedy the deficiencies noted above with
respect to Paige and Hildreth.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 4-8 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Paige is reversed. Similarly, the rejections of
claims 2, 9 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Paige in view
of Hildreth are reversed. The rejections of claims 3 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Paige in view of Hildreth and
Oppegaard are also reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007