Appeal No. 2002-1609
Application 09/129,238
F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); In re Greenfield,
571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978); In re
Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); In re
Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792, 171 USPQ 294, 294 (CCPA 1971). In the
instant case, appellants’ data fails to meet the burden set out
here.
We therefore agree with the rejection of claim 14.
With respect to claim 21, appellants argue that Fujinaga
does not suggest the specific plane anisotropy coefficient range
set forth in claim 21. However, on page 8 of the answer, the
examiner states that the plane anisotropy coefficient would be
inherent since the compositional and process limitations are
closely met, absence evidence to the contrary. We note that it
is well settled that the Patent Office can require appellants to
prove that a function or property relied upon for novelty is not
possessed by prior art otherwise meeting the limitations of the
claims. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA
1977). Because appellants have not provided such a showing, we
agree with the rejection of claim 21.
II. Conclusion
We sustain the rejection of record.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007