Appeal 2007-1943
Application 10/443,649
anticipation by, or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in view of,
Rostislav Didchenko, et al. (Didchenko), U.S. Patent 4,645,584, patented
February 24, 1987 (Examiner’s Answer, page 3 (Answer, p. 3)). Claims 3,
5, 13, and 15 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in
view of Didchenko.
The final rejections of Claims 2-17 and 25-33 stand or fall with the
Examiner’s final rejections of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Didchenko. With regard to further limitations in
claims other than process Claim 1 and product-by-process Claim 11,
Appellants argue (Appellants’ Brief On Appeal, entered September 7, 2005,
page 6 (Br. 6)):
Didchenko et al. fail to suggest the claimed steps. Didchenko et
al. are deficient in teaching the key elements of Appellants’ claims.
The absence of the key elements of the claims in and of itself is
sufficient to conclude that no case of obviousness has been
established. The mere existence of those individual steps are not even
found in the prior art.
Nowhere do Didchenko et al. disclose or suggest these steps.
The Examiner cannot add to the disclosure of Didchenko what
is not there. Quite simply, Didchenko does not disclose or suggest the
PAH limitation of the claims.
The Examiner argues that because the feedstock and precursor
pitch is produced in the same manner as claimed, the characteristics of
the feedstock and precursor pitch would necessarily be the same or
similar to that which is claimed.
No basis in fact or theory exist [sic] for making such a
conclusion.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013