Appeal No. 2000-1420 Page 5
Application No. 08/875,528
the primary references because they too are drawn to
processes for making hydrotalcites.
The examiner simply has not adequately explained how and why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify
any of the processes of Miyata ‘523, Miyata ‘525 or Wautier so as
to form appellants’ claimed hydrotalcite of the formula specified
in the appealed claims, which includes an hydroxide or organic
ion A, while using a reactant mixture of divalent and trivalent
metal alcoholates. Thus, the examiner has not reasonably
established how the combined references would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to a modify the process of any of the
primary references so as to arrive at appellants’ process as
called for in any of the claims on appeal. In this context, the
examiner's rejections fall short in not identifying a convincing
and particularized suggestion, reason or motivation to combine
the references or make the proposed modification in a manner so
as to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata ‘523 or
Miyata ‘525 in view of Miyata ‘814 or Miyata ‘626, and to reject
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007