Appeal No. 2006-3254
Application No. 10/347,982
of ordinary skill in the art may have known how to alter the amount of
reactants to provide a salt having the claimed ratio. However, the Examiner
has not set forth adequate basis for the conclusion that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to alter the amount of reactants to
provide such a salt. “Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art
reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify
the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55
USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The Examiner has not shown that claim 8 would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art based on Haas. Claim 11 depends from
claim 8. We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Haas.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Haas. However, we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claims 1, 4, and 5 as obvious over Jokura in view of Günter and of
claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, and 11 as obvious over Jokura in view of Cole.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013