Appeal 2007-2814
Application 10/215,174
particles. As a result, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case that the process described in Raymond would
inherently result in binding agent being adhered to the silica gel particles
with fixing agent. In addition, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case that it would have been obvious to modify Raymond’s process in order
to adhere binding agent to the silica gel particles with fixing agent.
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-
7, 9-13, 15, 19-21, 23-28, 31-33, and 41-51, which depend from claim 1.
As with claim 1, independent claims 52-59 each recite “at least one
binding agent adhered to said silica gel material with a substantially water
soluble fixing agent.” Because we conclude that the Examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case that Raymond teaches or suggests binding agent
adhered to the silica gel particles with fixing agent, we also reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 52-59.
Claims 8, 14, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, and 34-40 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
• claim 8 as obvious over Raymond in view of Frazier;
• claims 14, 22, and 35 as obvious over Raymond in view of
Benjamin;
• claims 16, 17, 34, and 36 as obvious over Raymond in view of
Cowan;
• claims 29 and 30 as obvious over Raymond in view of Ito;
• claims 37 and 38 as obvious over Raymond in view of Fisher; and
• claims 39 and 40 as obvious over Raymond in view of Stanislowski.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013