Ex parte CHRISTEL et al. - Page 10




               Appeal No. 95-3557                                                                                                    
               Application No. 07/833,417                                                                                            

                       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.  ... 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.                                                                                           

                                                          CONCLUSION                                                                 

                       To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. §                    

               103 is reversed.  However, claims 11 through 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                              

               anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Huster.                               

                       This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) (amended                    

               effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53, 131, 53, 197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 off.                

               Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).  37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, “A new                       

               ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial review.”                                   

                       37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM                                 

               THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the two following options with respect to the                          

               new ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceeedings (§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejectged claims:                 

                               (1)  Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or a showing                           
                       of facts relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by                     
                       the examiner, in which event the application will be remanded to the examiner ....                            

                               (2)  Request that the application be reheard under § 1.197(b) by the Board of                         
                       Patent Appeals and Interferences upon the same record ...                                                     

                                                               - 10 -                                                                





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007