Appeal 2006-1483
Application 10/159,395
be extrapolated to define the claimed foreshortening ridge as an
inherent feature of the illustrated papers. [Reply Br. 2-3.]
This argument is not well taken. First, as undisputed by the Appellants, the
figures showing a single point of the x-y and z-y planes, together with
Morgan’s written description discussed supra, appear to indicate that
Morgan’s tissue papers are identical or substantially identical to the claimed
tissue papers. Moreover, as indicated supra, Morgan’s tissue papers appear
to be made by substantially the same method as the Appellants,’ including a
creping step, which according to page 17 of the Appellants’ Specification,
will produce "foreshortening," as required by claim 22.
In view of the foregoing, we concur with the Examiner that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of anticipation
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
V. CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
VI. TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
cam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007