Appeal No. 95-3828
Application 07/868,037
Krummheuer references. It is further noted that the filament
linear density and a modified huckaback weave, as recited in
appealed claim 16, are not found in the applied prior art (see
the answer, pages 4 and 5). On this record, appellants and
the examiner have not established whether a “modified”
huckaback weave is known in the art (see the specification,
page 3, lines 15-27).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
failed to meet the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, supra.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Krummheuer I in view of Krummheuer II
and Belitsin is reversed.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed. The rejection of claims 16-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krummheuer I in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007