Appeal No. 2002-2244
Application 09/037,586
The examiner relies upon Torii only for a disclosure of
components recited in the appellants’ dependent claims (answer,
pages 5-7), and not for any disclosure that remedies the
above-discussed deficiency in Vines.1
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the appellants’ claimed invention.
Also, the examiner has not established that Vines and
Torii are combinable. The examiner argues that it would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine two compositions useful for the same purpose to form a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007