Appeal No. 2003-0413
Application 09/148,262
composites (col. 3, lines 21-36; col. 5, lines 11-27; col. 12,
lines 41-50). The hard skin layer provides the desired surface
quality to the article (col. 5, lines 33-34). The article
surfaces are relatively smooth, having an average surface
roughness of less than about 0.1-0.2 :m (col. 10, lines 48-56;
col. 11, lines 12-47; col. 12, lines 51-53). Baumgartner does
not disclose that the plastic contains a release agent.
Because Baumgartner’s article, like that of the appellant,
is made in a mold having a skin layer which imparts a desired
surface finish to the molded article, the disclosed surface
finish being a relatively smooth surface, it reasonably appears
that Baumgartner’s article has an enhanced surface as that term
is used by the appellant.
When the appellant’s product and that of the prior art
appear to be identical or substantially identical, the burden
shifts to the appellant to provide evidence that the prior art
product does not necessarily or inherently possess the relied-
upon characteristics of the appellant’s claimed product. See
In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980);
Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34. The appellant has
not provided such evidence.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007