Appeal No. 2002-0672
Application No. 09/158,715
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the desirability of
the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d
at 1783-84. The examiner’s mere assertion that a curvilinear
catalyst block would have been within the purview of one of
ordinary skill in the art during routine experimentation and
optimization is not sufficient to establish that the applied
prior art itself would have fairly suggested the desirability of
such a structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
DECISION
The rejections over Lesieur of claims 10 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.
REVERSED
Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Thomas A. Waltz )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Romulo H. Delmendo )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/eld
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007