Appeal No. 1998-3256
Application 08/692,325
prima facie case of anticipation in order to maintain the grounds of rejection under § 102(b). See
generally, Spada, 911 F.2d at 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d at 1657 n.3.
The examiner also does not address the apparent differences between the claimed and prior art
products in the grounds of rejection under § 103(a), and in any event, as further pointed out by
appellants, the examiner does not rely on either of Obrecht and Sandstrom with respect to the basic
differences between the tread compositions of appealed claim 1 and those of Smith or Ogawa. Thus,
the examiner has also failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as well. See generally, In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007