Appeal No. 2006-0251 Page 9
Application No. 10/017,697
in the absence of the essential tri-ester, and thereby arrive at a composition such
as that set forth in appellants’ claim 1. Accordingly, the examiner has not met his
burden5 of providing the evidence necessary to established that claim 1 is prima
facie obvious over White. Since claims 5, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 20 ultimately depend
from claim 1, we find that the examiner has failed to meet his burden of establish
a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims as well.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 5, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over White.
REVERSED
)
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Donald E. Adams ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge )
DEA/jlb
5 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007