Appeal No. 2005-1247
Application No. 09/963,423 Page 11
present in the dispersions of the applied references, absent
concrete evidence establishing the obtention of a solid product
having particles of such sizes in the applied references, does
not support a finding of anticipation. On this record, we
reverse the examiner’s § 102 rejection.
§ 103(a) Rejection
Concerning the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 21, the examiner does not offer any further analysis of the
contested claimed particle size limitation explaining how Lange
in combination with any of the Reiff patents would have rendered
the claimed solid product including the particle size limitation
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It follows that we
shall also reverse the examiner’s obviousness rejection, on this
record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007