Appeal No. 2006-0272
Application No. 09/986,124
Obviousness
Claims 30-47 and 53-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Nussinovitch in view of Wang and Fattman.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires
that the prior art both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable
expectation of success to one reasonably skilled in the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,
493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). With this as background, we analyze
the prior art applied by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
The disclosure of Nussinovitch is set forth above. As discussed herein,
Nussinovich, 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.
The examiner also acknowledges that Nussinovitch does not teach “glutaraldehyde as a
crosslinker, ammonium bicarbonate as a blowing agent or fibers.” Answer, page 4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007