Appeal No. 2002-0448 Page 10
Application No. 09/194,824
In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan, ... with no
knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited
prior art references for combination in the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem Inc. v.
Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
Given, as discussed supra, that Turchini is directed to a structurally
different reactant (e.g., ethoxylated alcohols of the formula R3(OCH2CH2)nOH)
we are not persuaded by the examiner’s reliance on this reference.
Therefore, on reflection, it is our opinion that the examiner failed to meet
his burden of providing the evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 11-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Turchini and
Tesmann.
REVERSED
)
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007