Appeal No. 2003-1684
Application No. 09/508,080
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Bank et al. 5,225,510 Jul. 6, 1993
(Bank)
Sawada et al. 5,288,891 Feb. 22, 1994
(Sawada)
Horino et al. 5,458,976 Oct. 17, 1995
(Horino)
Asai et al. 5,599,893 Feb. 4, 1997
(Asai)
Claims 17 through 24 and 26 through 41 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bank in
view of Sawada and Asai. (Examiner’s answer mailed Feb. 25,
2003, paper 27, pages 4-10.) In a similar fashion, appealed
claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bank in view of Sawada and Asai, as applied to
claims 17 through 24, and further in view of Horino. (Id. at
page 10.)
We reverse both rejections because, in our judgment, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
As recited in representative claim 17, all the appealed
claims require the specified partial hydrolysate of a fluorine-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007