Appeal No. 1999-0203
Application No. 08/399,384
on the amount and strength of the acid added, as well as the
other components of the solution such as the PVOH and the basic
crosslinking agent.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection based on section
103, the examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to
the skilled artisan to adjust the pH of the solution of Knoerzer
via adding more catalyst to the solution so as to increase the
crosslinking rate and subsequently drop the pH of the solution.”
Answer, paragraph bridging pages 6-7. We determine that the
examiner has failed to support this conclusion with any
convincing evidence or reasoning. If one of ordinary skill in
the art wanted to increase the crosslinking rate, one would have
used the superior catalyst, i.e., sulfuric acid, instead of
nitric acid (see Knoerzer, col. 3, ll. 57-60). Furthermore, the
examiner has not provided any reasoning, suggestion or
motivation why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
wanted to increase the crosslinking rate. See In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999,
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Even assuming arguendo
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007