Appeal No. 2001-1873
Application 08/261,863
Also, the examiner has not pointed out where Red discloses
producing commercial quantities of neutralized oil and soapstock.
The examiner argues that “[t]he size of the operation (i.e.,
bench vs commercial) is of no consequence, it is the product
produced” (answer, page 5). This argument is not well taken
because in order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v.
Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). The appellant’s sole independent claim requires
“beginning with a commercial scale quantity of crude agricultural
oil” and recites “to produce commercial scale quantities of
neutralized oil and soapstock.” The examiner has not pointed out
where the commercial scale limitation is disclosed in Red.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the process recited in any of the appellant’s
claims. Accordingly we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007