Appeal No. 1999-0404 Page 17
Application No. 08/580,256
that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not
possess the characteristics of the claimed invention. See In
re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The appellants have not come forward with
any evidence to satisfy that burden. Compare In re Best, 562
F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re
Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
Claims 2 to 6
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 to 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Dependent claim 2 adds to parent claim 1 the further
limitation that "said main grooves are formed by being
inclined at an angle in a range from 7° to 25° with respect to
a pipe axis." Dependent claims 3 to 6 add to parent claim 1
the further limitation that "said auxiliary grooves are formed
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007