Appeal No. 1998-1416 Page 7
Application No. 08/062,736
examiner’s § 102 rejection of those appealed claims over Jones
for the reasons set forth above and in the answer.
Our disposition of the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims
20-22 and 27 is another matter. The examiner has the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by
particularly pointing out where all of the claim limitations are
described in a single reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This the
examiner has not done with respect to the latter mentioned
claims. See page 4, 14 and 15 of the brief.
Other Issue
As a final point, we note that appellants describe admitted
prior art at pages 1, 2 and the paragraph bridging pages 25 and
26 of the specification. Moreover, Jones describes the use of a
laminating adhesive in Examples 15 and 16, albeit a silicon
monoxide coating was used in those examples. The examiner is
advised to determine the full extent of the admitted prior art as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007