Appeal No. 2000-1213
Application No. 08/566,006
As shown by actual samples submitted in the file of the
instant application, applicant’s technique produces
sheeting having exceptional brilliance.
The samples, however, are not submitted in the form of a
declaration or an affidavit (under oath). 37 CFR § 1.132 (1999);
In re Orfeo, 440 F.2d 439, 441, 169 USPQ 487, 489 (CCPA 1971). Nor
is there any comparison between the closest prior art and these
samples. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705,
222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, there is no
indication that these samples are formed by ultrasonic welding
techiniques other than that specifically described in the
application. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296
(CCPA 1980)(the evidence relied upon must be commensurate in scope
with the claims).
In view of the forgoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting all the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007