Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
more than 50% by volume of lubricant (e.g., PTFE) and being
integrally bonded to the sliding portion 81 and is described
as having excellent durability and a low coefficient of
friction. See “Abstract.”
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that Yasukawa
discloses a product which reasonably appears to be identical
with the product claimed in appealed claim 14. We agree. The
end product of the method recited in appealed claim 12 is an
elastomer windshield wiper having a PTFE coated blade portion.
Likewise, the end product of the method disclosed by Yasukawa
is an elastomer windshield wiper having a lip or sliding
portion 81 with a surface layer 51 of PTFE. Thus, in our
opinion, it was reasonable for the examiner to conclude that
the prior art discloses a product which is identical with the
product claimed in product-by-process claim 14.
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show
that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to
that of the prior art, although produced by a different
process, the burden shifts to the appellant to come forward
with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the
claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007