Appeal No. 95-4648
Application No. 07/952,137
mold. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the
examiner has reasonable belief that the molded article of
Kobayashi and the claimed molded article are identical or only
slightly different. Therefore the examiner has shifted the
burden of proof to appellants to submit factual evidence
demonstrating that actual, unobvious differences exist between
the claimed and prior art molded article. In re Fessman, 489
F.2d at 745, 180 USPQ at 326: Ex parte Phillips, 28 USPQ2d
1302, 1303 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Appellants have submitted the Niwa Declaration under 37
CFR § 1.132 dated July 12, 1994 (Paper No. 30) as evidence
that “[t]he product produced by the monomer casting method of
the present claimed invention has unexpected properties when
compared with the reference products.” (Brief, pages 5-6, see
also the Reply Brief, pages 2-3). However, this Declaration
is not persuasive for several reasons. The prior art “C”
molded article is not surface treated while Examples S1 and S2
representing the claimed subject matter are surface treated in
0.5% alcohol-soluble nylon A-70. Kobayashi specifically
teaches that “[i]n order to improve the adhesion to a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007