Appeal No. 1998-2129 Page 6
Application No. 08/561,816
Rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of
the claim limitations are described in a single reference.
See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136,
138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This the examiner has not done.
Rather, the examiner essentially urges that the fibrous
product of Meeker that includes permeated material (30,
figures 2 and 3) meets the structure of claim 18. We
disagree. The product specified in claim 18 requires a
plurality of nail tabs made of thermoplastic or thermosetting
material. As we noted above, such nail tabs constitute
protrusions on the surface of a covering material. In our
view, the single area (30, figures 2 and 3) in which a molten
thermoplastic material permeates and solidifies in the fibrous
product of Meeker does not constitute a teaching of a single
tab let alone a plurality of surface protrusions or tabs as
required by that appealed claim. Hence, the examiner has
simply not carried the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation as to appealed claim 18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007