Appeal No. 2003-0870 Page 5
Application No. 09/046,740
That is, the respective processes defined by the independent claims on appeal
would not be achieved even if an artisan were to “modify Schulenburg process to
include temperature range of 20-70°C as taught in the analogous process of Gajewski,
or alternatively adjust the alkaline pH as taught by Krulik, or optionally add calcium
cyanamide in installment as taught by Cooper” (Answer at page 5). This is because the
appellants’ independent claims recite a number of steps which are not addressed at all
by the examiner and which are not disclosed by Schulenburg and accordingly which
would not be part of the process resulting from modifying Schulenburg in the afore-
quoted manner. Under these circumstances, it cannot be gainsaid that the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection fails to satisfy the basic requirements for a prima facie case of
obviousness as set forth, for example, in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure at
Section 2143 et seq (8th Edition, Revision 1, February 2003).
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007