Appeal No. 2006-1383 Page 5
Application No. 10/025,065
oligoester.” As appellants point out (Brief, page 4), “[n]o person reading Löffler
would have any idea of what the Aristoflex AVC does in his compositions, and
would certainly have no reason to vary his amounts.” We agree. Simply put, the
examiner failed to meet her burden of presenting the evidence necessary to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Löffler.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Löffler in view of appellants’ “admitted prior art”.
Despite Löffler’s disclosure that dyes may be added to the compositions
disclosed therein (see column 4, lines 19-25, and column 5, lines 8-9), the
examiner finds that Löffler “does not expressly disclose the compositions therein
further comprising one or more dyes coloring pigments.” Answer, page 4.
Therefore, the examiner relies on appellants’ specification to make up for this
alleged deficiency in Löffler. Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 4-5.
This secondary evidence, however, fails to make up for Löffler’s failure to
teach a composition comprising 0.2% to 0.3% by weight of one or more
ammonium acryloyldimethyltaurates/vinylpyrrolidone copolymers as is required
by appellants’ claimed invention. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007