Appeal No. 2003-0413
Application 09/148,262
article over that which is taught by the references” (answer,
page 6). The examiner, however, provides no evidence or
reasoning in support of this argument.
The examiner argues that “the Examiner cannot precisely
determine how the ‘enhanced surface finish’ of the presently
claimed invention is distinct or different over that of the
teachings of Niederst et al.” See id. This argument is not well
taken because, as pointed out above, the examiner has the initial
burden of providing evidence or reasoning which shows that the
articles of the appellant and Niederst reasonably appear to be
the same or substantially the same. The examiner’s mere
statement that the examiner is not able to determine whether the
articles of the appellant and Niederst are different does not
provide the required evidence or reasoning.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation of the appellant’s claimed invention over Niederst.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection over this reference.
Rejection over Baumgartner
Baumgartner discloses a plastic article which may be made by
injection molding using a mold having a hard skin layer that can
be made of metal, ceramics, glass, quartz, plastics and plastic
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007