Appeal 2007-3256
Application 10/900,619
applications, we are in agreement with the Examiner that Munro’s
compositions include components which inherently provide a “desired feel”
and, therefore, meet the claim limitation of a “tactile effect composition”
(see Finding of Fact 12; compare Finding of Fact 5 with Finding of Fact 13).
See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1324 n. 6,
67 USPQ2d 1825, 1832 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(“The anticipation analysis asks
solely whether the prior art reference discloses and enables the claimed
invention, and not how the prior art characterizes that disclosure.”).
Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments or evidence to refute
the Examiner’s finding of inherency. See 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.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by JP ‘976 and the rejection of claims 1-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Munro.
Appellants do not present any additional substantive arguments with
respect to the provisional rejection of claims 1-14 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
claims 1-7, 26-32, 35-36, 38, and 45-51 of copending Application No.
10/034,825 (see Br. 3 and Reply 1). Accordingly, we also affirm this
rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013