Appeal No. 2004-0582
Application No. 09/037,945
the recited 30 atmospheres. Again, we do not find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention, nor do we find an adequate
line of reasoning to support the examiner conclusion that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of a
wet process as taught by Cattus with the dry process of Marshall and optimize the
conditions as suggested by the examiner at pages 4-5 of the answer. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 8, 11 and dependent claims 3, 9, 12,
and 16.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007