Appeal No. 2000-1869
Application No. 08/922,478
not disclose aluminum hydroxide prepared from the isopropoxide
(e.g., Brief, pages 8 and 13; Reply Brief, pages 2 and 7).
The examiner appears to give no weight to the process
limitation that the aluminum hydroxide is formed by hydrolysis of
aluminum isopropoxide (Answer, pages 5-6 and 9-10). The examiner
states that the aluminum hydroxide of the references “would
appear to be the same” as the aluminum hydroxide produced by any
other process, such as appellants’ claimed process of hydrolysis
of aluminum isopropoxide (id.). However, appellants are not
claiming a product (or product-by-process), but are claiming a
process and all limitations of the claims must be considered by
the examiner. See In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545,
548 (CCPA 1970).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not presented a sufficient factual basis to support a prima
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, all of the rejections on
appeal are reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007