Appeal No. 2001-0971 Page 5
Application No. 08/256,736
reaction.” Appeal Brief, page 10. The examiner has failed to refute that
assertion, thus, in light of the state of the art as presented by appellants, there
would have been even less motivation to lower the reaction temperature.
Therefore, the rejection has not set forth a prima facie case of how the
references would have led the ordinary artisan to the claimed invention.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Denis and Swindell, for the reasons as set forth above, is
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LG/dym
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
Dunner LLP
1300 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007