Ex Parte Moriyama et al - Page 17

                 Appeal 2007-1855                                                                                                        
                 Application 10/815,650                                                                                                  
                 In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-56, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977);4                                                  
                 In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950-51, 186 USPQ 80, 82-83 (CCPA 1975)                                                      
                 (“Appellants have chosen to describe their invention in terms of certain                                                
                 physical characteristics of the roughened substrate surface. . . . Merely                                               
                 choosing to describe their invention in this manner does not render                                                     
                 patentable their method which is clearly obvious in view of [the reference].”                                           
                 (Citation omitted)).                                                                                                    
                        We are of the opinion Appellants have not carried their burden.  We                                              
                 disagree with Appellants that the use of information with respect to the                                                
                 claimed toner compositions in the written description in the Specification in                                           
                 comparing the claimed toner compositions as a whole with the toner                                                      
                 compositions of Machida to determine compliance with §§ 102(b) and                                                      
                                                                                                                                        
                        “appear to be identical” to those described by Smith. While                                                      
                        Spada criticizes the usage of the word “appear,” we think that it                                                
                        was reasonable for the PTO to infer that the polymerization by                                                   
                        both Smith and Spada of identical monomers, employing the                                                        
                        same or similar polymerization techniques, would produce                                                         
                        polymers having the identical composition.                                                                       
                 Spada, 911 F.2d at 708, 15 USPQ2d at 1657-58.                                                                           
                 4         Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or                                           
                        substantially identical, or are produced by identical or                                                         
                        substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an                                                        
                        applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily                                                
                        or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.                                                
                        See In re Ludtke, [441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971)].                                                      
                        Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under                                                              
                        35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C.                                                    
                        § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same,                                                
                        and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to                                                          
                        manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art                                                          
                        products. [Footnote and citation omitted.]                                                                       
                 Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34.                                                                             
                                                         17                                                                              









Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013