Appeal 2007-0499
Application 10/515,345
Examiner should consider whether or not one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found a suggestion based on selections from the teachings of
Gonzalez-Blanco, with or without other references, to make a solid pigment
preparation corresponding to the claim 1 solid pigment preparation, as an
intermediate or final product, in a manner so as to render the claim 1 subject
matter prima facie obvious. If so, the Examiner should consider introducing
an obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Gonzalez-Blanco alone or, in
combination with any other references the Examiner may be aware of that
would support such a rejection, during any such continued prosecution
explaining in detail the reasons/rationale in support of any such rejection.
Further, if such an obviousness rejection is introduced, the Examiner should
determine whether or not such an obviousness rejection should be extended
to any of the other pending claims. In this regard, we observe that whether
or not the claim 1 subject matter would have been obvious within the
meaning of § 103(a) over Gonzalez-Blanco was not developed by the
Examiner on this record as an issue for resolution in this appeal.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 as standing
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-12 of copending
Application No. 10/501,343 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gonzales-Blanco and the rejection of claims 4, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales-Blanco in view of Nyssen is
reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013