Appeal No. 95-4450
Application No. 07/949,676
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found.
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991). The examiner has the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing
out where all of the claim limitations appear in a single
reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327,
231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants’ claim 23 describes a process for imparting
softening properties to textile material by a specific
application of an effective amount of a softener composition
thereto. The examiner has not pointed to any teaching in
Llenado of using formula D of example XX as a softening
composition to be applied in an effective amount to textiles
to improve the softness thereof as recited in claim 23. We
are mindful that Llenado (column 8, lines 1-6) discloses a
laundry utility, among other utilities, for the generally
described foams as indicated by the examiner. However,
patentee does not teach applying an effective amount of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007