Appeal No. 2001-0825
Application No. 08/952,566
monomer, (2) the particularly claimed vinyl monomer, and (3) one
or more other vinyl monomers. Hence, the examiner’s ground of
rejection does not explain how the requirements of component (a)
of appellants’ claim 1 is met in this regard. Nor does the
examiner’s response (beginning of page 4 on the answer) to
appellants’ arguments on this issue explain how such
requirements are met.
Likewise, the examiner does not explain how the fluorine
containing copolymer of Mohri meets these aspects of component
(a) of appellants’ claim 1.
We note that the burden is on the examiner to identify
concrete evidence in the record to support his conclusion that
it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of the cited
references to achieve the claimed invention [emphasis added].
In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). In the present case, the examiner has simply failed
to meet this burden.
We therefore determine the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007