Appeal No. 2006-1231
Application No. 10/180,686
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.
1990)(“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the
products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the
applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). The
appellants do not rely upon evidence for overcoming the prima
facie anticipation.
For the above reasons we find that the appellants’ claimed
invention is anticipated by each of Ohguro, Anjum, Maa and
Cabral.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 12, 14, 15, 18, 29, 31, 32 and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Ohguro, claims 12, 15, 29 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Anjum, claims 12-15, 17, 18 and
29-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Maa, and claims 12-15, 18,
19, 29-32, 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) over Cabral, are
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007