Ex Parte Wortzman et al - Page 5


                   Appeal No.  2006-0230                                                                Page 5                    
                   Application No.  09/864,083                                                                                    
                          Appellants focus our attention (Brief, pages 5-7), on the fact that Gordon                              
                   does not address the pH of the compositions disclosed therein.  In this regard,                                
                   appellants argue that since Gordon does not teach a pH of about 5.5 to about                                   
                   8.0, Gordon does not teach all the limitations of appellants’ claimed invention and                            
                   therefore cannot render appellants’ claimed invention prima facie obvious.  Id.                                
                   However, as we understand the examiner’s argument (Answer, page 4),                                            
                   compositions having similar ingredients would have a similar pH.  Stated                                       
                   differently, given their similar ingredients, it would be reasonable to expect that                            
                   the pH of Gordon’s compositions would inherently be the same as, or within, the                                
                   range set forth in appellants’ claim.  As set forth in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,                              
                   1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977), footnote omitted:                                                     
                          Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or                                     
                          substantially identical, … the PTO can require an applicant to prove                                    
                          that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess                                    
                          the characteristics of his claimed product....  Whether the rejection                                   
                          is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie                                          
                          obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the                                       
                          burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the                                       
                          PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare                                        
                          prior art products.                                                                                     
                          Apparently recognizing the burden placed on them by Best, appellants                                    
                   direct our attention to Exhibit 1 of the Brief which lists U.S. Patents 5,889,054                              
                   (‘054), 5,962,526 (‘526), and 5,554,652 (‘652).  Upon review of the three patents                              
                   we note that the ‘652 patent is a continuation of United States Patent No.                                     
                   5,470,880 (‘880).  The ‘054 and ‘526 patents are both a continuation of United                                 
                   States Patent 5,691,378, which in turn is a continuation of the ‘880 patent.                                   
                   Therefore, all three patents cited by appellants have the same disclosure.                                     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007