Appeal No. 1999-2159 Page 7
Application No. 08/746,953
intermittently arranged longitudinally of the continuous
filaments." We agree. In addition, even if the examiner's
above-noted determination of obviousness was correct, we fail
to find any disclosure, teaching or suggestion in the applied
prior art that would have been suggestive of bonding Balch's
wipe-off layer to his heat-sealable sheet by "a plurality of
heat-seal lines extending to cross the continuous filaments
and intermittently arranged longitudinally of the continuous
filaments."
Moreover, in this case the examiner has relied upon a
statement of Official Notice in determining that the subject
matter of claim 1 was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
However, the examiner's taking of Official Notice was
seasonably challenged by the appellant in the amendment after
final (Paper No. 9, filed July 20, 1998) and the brief. Thus,
the burden to supply evidence to support this statement
shifted to the examiner and the examiner has not supplied any2
such evidence. Consequently, there is no factual basis to
2See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2144.03.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007