Appeal No. 1999-0734 Page 7
Application No. 08/686,495
formed from a one-piece green body molded in a shape very close to its final sintered shape
(Brief at 6). In other words, “net-shape molded” refers to a process of forming the ceramic body.
Rutt is said to form the ceramic body by stacking leaves or sheets of ceramic and fugitive
material rather than molding a one piece green body (Brief at 6).
The Examiner has adequately established that the multilayer capacitor structure taught by
Rutt reasonably appears to be the same as the structure of the claimed multilayer capacitor (Final
Office Action at 5; Answer at 3-4). See particularly Rutt at Figure 1. Under such circumstances
the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing a patentable
difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d
799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Appellants here provide no objective
evidence of a structural difference. The arguments in the brief are insufficient in this regard.
Attorney arguments in the Brief cannot take the place of evidence. In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506,
508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of anticipation with
regard to the subject matter of group 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007