Appeal No. 2001-0936
Application No. 08/952,208
increases from there. The remaining arguments relating to
equilibrium level do not apply to claim 13, as no lower limit is
specified. On balance, then, we agree that the process of Ritz
includes THA-1 in sufficient measure to meet the claim
limitations. The burden of showing otherwise has shifted to the
appellants, and the evidence of record does not refute the prima
facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we shall affirm this rejection as it applies to
claims 13-16.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed as to claims 1, 3-6 and 10-12.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is sustained as to claims 13-16.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007