Appeal No. 2006-0646
Application 10/465,194
identical’ to those described by Smith. While Spada criticizes the usage of the word ‘appear’, we
think that it was reasonable for the PTO to infer that the polymerization by both Smith and
Spada of identical monomers, employing the same or similar polymerization techniques, would
produce polymers having the identical composition.”); cf. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186
USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975) (“Appellants have chosen to describe their invention in terms of
certain physical characteristics . . . . Merely choosing to describe their invention in this manner
does not render patentable their method which is clearly obvious in view of [the reference].
[Citation omitted.]”).
Accordingly, in the absence of an established prima facie case of anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we reverse the grounds of
rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007