Appeal No. 2002-1575 Page 6
Application No. 08/945,901
147 (CCPA 1976). “If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the
applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by
experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the matter are
to be reweighed.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986). On this record, the examiner makes no attempt to rebut
appellants’ argument and evidence, demonstrating that “the stimulative effects
on the proliferation of corneal keratocytes and effects on the strength of a wound
closure site are not inherently the same.” Brief, pages 7-8.
For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the claimed invention is
not obvious over Mita.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 8-15, 21, and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mita
is reversed.
REVERSED
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
DA/dym
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007