Appeal No. 2006-2030
Application No. 10/101,020
no factual basis for concluding that all PHVO’s will
necessarily satisfy the IV limitation of the instant
claims.
The examiner further asserts (Answer: p.6) that the
broad suggestion in Thompson to use a PHVO would somehow
motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a
PHVO which has an IV falling within the claimed range. The
examiner has failed to provide any rationale to explain why
an ordinary artisan would have been so motivated.
Certainly, Thompson provides no basis for selecting one
PHVO over another based on IV values.
Thus, the examiner has failed to make out a persuasive
case for obviousness within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the
examiner is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007