Appeal No. 1998-0296
Application 08/431,312
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148
USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing
court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 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, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967).
As claims 23 and 24 depend from claim 21, we will not
sustain the rejections of claims 21, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura.
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 21, 24, 25
27 or 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ina.
Claims 21 and 27 recite, "wherein said plastic body . . . has
a maximum thickness near the edges and has a minimum thickness
in the central portion, wherein the difference between the
maximum and the minimum thickness is twice a maximum expected
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007