Appeal No. 2003-0697
Application 09/750,088
Nevertheless, even if these processes were different, the
appealed claims would remain unpatentable since the products
defined thereby are indistinguishable from those of Condit. Id.
It is the appellant’s fundamental argument that the
prior art rejections based on Condit are improper because it is
the appellant rather than Condit who is the true inventor of the
subject matter defined by the appealed claims and disclosed in
the Condit patent. However, the record of this appeal does not
contain adequate probative evidence in support of this argument.
We are constrained, therefore, to regard the appellant’s argument
as unpersuasive.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we
hereby sustain the examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections of
claims 1-8 based on Condit.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007