Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
claimed invention because the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants are correct
that the conversion formula in Vuylsteke is not the same as
the claimed conversion formula. Not only does the examiner’s
formula fail to equate to the claimed formula, but the
examiner’s definitions of “y”, “x ” and “(x/x ) ” make nopo
max max
sense when applied to the Vuylsteke disclosure. There is
clearly no suggestion in Vuylsteke of defining the parameters
of Vuylsteke’s formula in the manner proposed by the examiner.
Since the formula disclosed by Vuylsteke is not the same as
the claimed formula, and since the examiner has not addressed
the obviousness of the claimed formula in view of the
Vuylsteke disclosure, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of the discussion above, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1-3 or of claims 4-
16 which depend from claim 1. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-16 is reversed.
REVERSED
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007