Appeal No. 1998-0299
Application No. 08/301,523
(Brief, pp. 11 and 12). Appellants assert the table appended to the principal Brief
provides a comparison of (1) film which has been watered by the manufacture
compared to (2) film watered by a sausage maker. According to Appellants, this
table shows the claimed films provide improved elasticity and the absence of folds
and creases which appear in the comparative examples. (Brief, p. 12).
Appellants’ proffered showing is deficient in a number of respects.
Significantly, the appealed claims are not limited to the specific type of multilayered
film described in the examples which are said by the Appellants to be responsible for
producing allegedly superior results. Also, the Appellants have not provided a
comparison of the closest prior art. That is, a comparison of an example which is
representative of the Oberle invention.
It is well settled that evidence presented to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains and
that such evidence which is considerably more narrow in scope than the claimed
subject matter is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case. In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356,
1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979). As indicated above, the Appellants’
proffered evidence is indeed considerably more narrow than the argued claims on
appeal and, for this reason alone, is inadequate to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the Examiner.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007