Appeal No. 2001-0218 4
Application No. 09/184,993
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 28 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Obayashi, De Bont, Barren, Sakashita, Ishiwa,
Miller et al., Lee ‘251, Lee ‘351, Mark and Miller.1
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the appellants for the reasons set forth in the Brief and those
herein that the rejection of record is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection.
The Rejection Under Section 103(a)
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner relies upon a combination of ten separate and distinct references to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Each reference discloses the preparation of a
polycarbonate composition comprising a polycarbonate, a phosphorous stabilizer and a
mold release agent.
1Claims 29 and 30 were denied entry. See advisory action dated Jan. 27. 2000
(Paper No. 12).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007