Appeal No. 95-1628
Application 08/067,750
In view of these teachings of the prior art, the mere
allegation by the examiner that the presence of heat in the
foaming step would inherently produce the claimed foamed
plastic does not establish that the processes as disclosed in
the references would necessarily produce a product that is
identical or substantially identical to the claimed product.
Levy, 17 USPQ2d at 1464; Skinner, supra.
Accordingly, we fail to find in the record any factual
basis or scientific reasoning which establishes that the
examiner’s position is a reasonable one that requires
appellants to establish that the processes of the prior art do
not in fact produce a product that is identical or
substantially identical to the claimed foamed plastic. Thus,
we reverse this ground of rejection in its entirety.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007