find that the combination of references does not teach the
limitation found in claim 17 and in claim 24 of utilizing a
coal-derived material having a composition of 70 to 91 percent
by mass carbon, 2 to 6 percent by mass of hydrogen, and 3 to
20 percent by mass of oxygen.
Therefore, we find that the examiner has not presented a
prima facie case of obviousness, and we reverse the rejection
of claims 17, 19, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view Reichl and Mueller.
We note that the reference of Morgan does not cure the
aforementioned deficiencies of the other applied references.
Hence, we also reverse the rejection of claim 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view
Reichl and Mueller, and further in view of Morgan.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 17, 19, 21, 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view Reichl and Mueller is
reversed. Also, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi
in view Reichl and Mueller and further in view of Morgan is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007