Appeal 2006-2601
Application 10/364,286
pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant has failed to point to any such
difference, let alone establish such by way of evidence. Accordingly,
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case of anticipation of
claims 1-4 by Sumiya.
Turning to the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 5-41 over Gillespie
in view of the admitted prior art, Gillespie evidences that the concept of
making synthetic gems from human remains was known in the art at the time
of filing the present application. The admitted prior art establishes that the
claimed process of cremation, including filtering, collecting, and purifying
the remains, was known in the art. Also, it was admittedly known how to
graphitize carbon and create gems using crystal growth sublimation.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to use any source of carbon, such as the
cremated human remains discussed by Gillespie, in the known process of
forming synthetic gems from carbon. We do not subscribe to Appellant's
argument that Gillespie is non-enabling for the process of synthetically
making gems from human remains. We are convinced that one of ordinary
skill in the art of making synthetic gems from elemental carbon would have
been enabled in the preparation of synthetic gems from the human remains
discussed by Gillespie. Once it was known in the art to make synthetic gems
from elemental carbon, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
derive and recover carbon from any organic matter and make synthetic gems
therefrom.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007