Appeal No. 1999-0551 Page 3
Application No. 08/636,431
wrapped ceramic yarn comprising particulates, CVI, and Sol-gel, and a coated wrapped ceramic yarn
comprising particulates, CVI, and Sol-gel.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims
are:
Bogart et al. (Bogart) 4,923,487 May 8, 1990
Butkus 4,946,487 Aug. 7, 1990
Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto)5,409,515 Apr. 25, 1995
Connolly et al. (Connolly) 5,460,637 Oct. 24, 1995
Zievers et al. (Zievers) 5,500,029 Mar. 19, 1996
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Yamamoto. Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Connolly
in view of Zievers. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Connolly in view of Zievers and, in addition, Bogart. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Connolly in view of Zievers and, in addition, Butkus. We reverse all
of the above rejections. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Anticipation by Yamamoto
For the reasons well articulated in the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief, we
find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation over Yamamoto. In
order for a reference to anticipate, “[t]here must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007