Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
to lack relevance to the facts in this case. That is, while
Welborn does not specifically disclose polypropylene, Maemoto
does and appellants have simply failed to address the
relevance of the combination of references on which the
examiner has relied to reject the claims. To extend Baird
beyond the specific facts of that case and apply the rule of
that case here is simply unwarranted.
Having concluded that the examiner has made out a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the appealed
subject matter, it is necessary for us to consider appellants'
rebuttal evidence, if any, and to reconsider the prima facie
case in light of all the evidence. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellants' rebuttal
evidence constitutes the declarations of one the named
inventors, Rueger Schlund. For reasons set forth below, we
find appellants' evidence to be inadequate to rebut the prima
facie case of obviousness.
In his first declaration, Schlund states at page 1,
that he is addressing the examiner's conclusion that the
claims are "either anticipated by Takahashi (6392631-4/88) or
obvious over Takahashi in view of Welborn." Nonetheless, the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007