Ex Parte SCHMIDT - Page 5


                                                                                                          Page 5                
               Appeal Number: 2005-2193                                                                                         
               Application Number: 09/385,405                                                                                   
               convincing evidence or argument showing that, indeed, the Schmidt waste would not contain the                    
               claimed first component treated as claimed.  Because the materials and processing are the same                   
               or substantially the same, it is eminently fair and acceptable to shift the burden to Appellant and              
               require him to prove that the prior art process is patentability different from the claimed process.             
               In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1254, 195 USPQ at 433.  This is particularly true, where, as here, the                   
               reference represents work done by the same inventor.  Appellant is in a better position to make                  
               the required comparisons than is the PTO.  In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1254, 195 USPQ at 433-34.                     
                      We also note that the claims are said to stand or fall together (Brief 10).  We select claim              
               71 to represent the issues on appeal and this claim does not include the language “having an                     
               affinity for the solvent”, that language is contained in claim 72.  Claim 71 merely requires that                
               the waste material contain “at least one first component which can not effectively be separated                  
               from the first liquid into a non-solvent based layer.”  Any component that remains in the lower                  
               aqueous layer (solvent layer) after separation facilitated by sight glass is a “first component” as              
               claimed.  Schmidt and the specification both describe using a sight glass to determine where to                  
               separate the phases (compare specification, p. 10, ll. 2-5 with Schmidt, col. 4, ll. 1-5).  Schmidt              
               and the specification both describe treating gelatin waste from encapsulation processes.  It                     
               follows that both processes result in a waste material containing at least one first component                   
               “which can not effectively be separated from the first liquid into a non-solvent layer” as claimed.              
                      The Examiner has established anticipation and such has not been sufficiently rebutted by                  
               Appellant.                                                                                                       
                      We also agree with the Examiner’s analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  Schmidt further                     
               describes hot filtering to remove any remaining traces of oil or other contaminants and also                     
               indicates that further residue may be recaptured for further separation and purification if desired.             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007