Appeal No. 1999-1153
Application 08/324,549
The examiner argues that Ochiai and Brouwer are not on
point because, unlike in those cases, the appellant’s process
makes a known product (answer, pages 7-8). Regardless of4
this factual distinction, the examiner must make the fact-
based analysis required by those cases, and the examiner has
not done so.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the process recited in the appellant’s
independent claim 1 over Phillion, Rajeswari, CA ‘979 or
CA ‘801. Consequently, we reverse the rejections over these
references.
Rejection of claim 21
Regarding Gizycki, the examiner argues: “The prior art
teaches an analogous process of preparing amides by reacting
amino triazine with phosgene. See column 2, Reactions (A)
4The product made by the process in Ross, like those in
Ochiai and Brouwer, was novel and unobvious. See Ross, 305
F.2d at 881, 134 USPQ at 322.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007