Appeal No. 2000-1420 Page 4
Application No. 08/875,528
have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or
select from the materials of the prior art processes so as to
arrive at the claimed invention. See Ochiai, 71 F.3d at 1570,
37 USPQ2d at 1131. In the present case, the examiner has not
carried this burden.
The examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4) takes the position that
none of Miyata ‘523, Miyata ‘525 or Wautier (the primary
references) disclose a method that results in the appellants’
product hydrotalcite. The examiner further asserts that Miyata
‘814 or Miyata ‘626 teach the claimed hydrotalcite. The examiner
does not offer a specific analysis of the methods of formation of
the hydrotalcite products presented in Miyata ‘814 or Miyata ‘626
and how they may or may not be similar or different the methods
of the relied upon primary references in the statement of the
rejections. Nor does the examiner offer a convincing response to
appellants’ contentions that the methods of making the
hydrotalcites taught by Miyata ‘814 or Miyata ‘626 are different
from the process claimed herein. See pages 7-13 of the brief and
the answer. Rather, the examiner (answer, page 5) reasons that:
since the primary references teach a general
procedure for making hydrotalcites it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to make the instantly
claimed known hydrotalcite by the taught processes of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007