Appeal No. 1998-0688
Application 08/274,158
court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788 the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), focused on the procedural and
evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under
section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure,
Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires
it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of
an application under section 102 and 103" (citing In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967)).
We find that, based on the foregoing analysis as related
to claim 1, Hosaka does not teach an achromatic document
covering surface having a regular reflectance of from 1.5% to
20% and a relative intensity of irregularly reflected light of
from N4 to N8.5 in the Munsell color system as recited in
Appellant’s claim 10. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection
of claims 10 through 12, 15, and 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hosaka and Sato.
With regard to the rejections of claims 22 through 27, we
note that claims 22 through 24 depend from claim 1 and claims
25 through 27 depend from claim 10. For the same reasons as
discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 22 through
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007