Appeal No. 2006-0272
Application No. 09/986,124
arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236,
9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We do not find the examiner has presented evidence to support a prima facie case
of anticipation. In particular, Nussinovich discloses in Example 1 (column 5), the
preparation of an air-filled gel from five primary ingredients, as listed in the table in the
example. The proteinaceous material, sodium alginate is, at best, mixed with calcium
hydrogen orthophosphate, calcium carbonate and water. This solution is later mixed
with citric acid solution. Nussinovich, however, does not disclose a second solution that
is reactable with the proteinaceous component of the first aqueous solution to form a
solid proteinaceous biopolymeric material in response to mixing of said first and second
aqueous solutions. Instead, as we understand it, Nussinovich’s “second solution” is a
2% citric acid solution. Nussinovich, column 5, line 40. In contrast, according to
appellants’ [specification and] claims, the second solution comprises two components
(1) a solution which is reactable with the proteinaceous component of the first aqueous
solution to form a solid proteinaceous biopolymeric material in response to mixing the
first and second aqueous solutions, e.g. solution that comprises di- or polyaldehydes
(see claim 30, and specification, pages 4-5); and (2) an acidic titrant.
We find no teaching in Nussinovich of a component in the second aqueous
solution which is reactable with the proteinaceous component of the first solution, as
required by appellants’ claimed invention. In view of the above, the rejection for
anticipation is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007