Appeal No. 2001-1375
Application 09/204,609
obvious to have modified Selin to achieve the claimed invention
are based more on supposition than on explicit factual findings
and, in our view, do not amount to a prima facie showing of
obviousness. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1370, 1371, 55 USPQ2d
1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added)(“[P]articular
findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with
no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these
components for combination in the manner claimed.”) Accordingly,
the rejection is reversed.
Having concluded that a prima facie case of obviousness has
not been established, we need not consider appellants’ evidence
of nonobviousness. However, having considered the specification
disclosure, we note the following. Examples one and two provide
a direct comparison between cellulose carbamate solutions
prepared by a one-step method as taught by the closest prior art
versus the claimed two-step method. Based on our review of the
comparison data, we agree with appellants that these examples
demonstrate that the claimed process unexpectedly results in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007