Appeal No. 1997-0110
Application 08/236,258
because the examiner has not explained why, regardless of this
modification, Yagi’s composite reasonably appears to be the
same or substantially the same that claimed by appellant. In
the absence of such an explanation, appellant is not required
to come forward with evidence. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner argues that Yagi’s disclosure of
noncrosslinked fibers is a disclosure of appellant’s invention
(answer, pages 3-4). Yagi, however, does not disclose use of
noncrosslinked fibers in combination with a polyurethane
matrix.
For the above reasons, the examiner has not set forth a
factual basis which is sufficient for supporting a finding of
anticipation of the invention recited in any of appellant’s
claims. We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the examiner’s argument that Yagi discloses
noncrosslinked fibers (answer, pages 3-4), we note that this
disclosure is in comparative examples, and a polyurethane is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007