Appeal No. 2000-0343
Application 08/849,008
references) in the process of Himmelheber et al, in place of
the corresponding, analogous particles employed therein; mere
substitution of one known hydroxyl group containing (filler)
particle for another involved” (answer, page 7).
The examiner, however, has not established that the
applied references would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, the treated lignocellulosic
material made by the method recited in the appellant’s claim
1. Also, the examiner has not explained how the applied prior
art would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, the steps recited in the appellant’s claim 23.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of this claim and claim
24 which depends therefrom.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-20 over
Gaylord in view of Earl alone, Earl in view of Simons, or Earl
in view of Simons and Gaylord ‘685, and claims 23 and 24 over
Himmelheber in view of Gaylord ‘230 and further in view of
Earl
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007