Ex Parte LANIGAN et al - Page 3


               Appeal No. 2003-2032                                                                                                   
               Application 09/116,371                                                                                                 

               lands.”  Thus, contrary to the examiner’s position “that calender rolls are not claimed” (answer,                      
               page 4), the calender roll is certainly an integral part of the claimed method as encompassed by                       
               appealed independent claims 1 and 26, and the limitations with respect thereto must be given                           
               effect in applying prior art to the appealed claims, as appellants argue (see brief and reply brief in                 
               entirety).                                                                                                             
                       Upon comparing the claimed method as encompassed by appealed claim 1 with the                                  
               combined teachings of Harrington and Smith, it seems to us that the disclosure of FIG. 7, page                         
               51, lines 1-13, and the Examples of Harrington constitute the closest prior art of that applied by                     
               the examiner, differing from the claimed method in the calendar roll shown in Harrington                               
               FIG. 7, as appellants contend.  Thus, on this record, it is this difference in claimed and prior art                   
               calender rolls which must be the focus of the inquiry under § 103(a).  Graham v. John Deere Co.,                       
               383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 460 (1966).                                                                           
                       To the extent that it can be said that the examiner sufficiently considered this difference                    
               to the point of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, appellants have brought forth                          
               argument, including objective evidence, in rebuttal (see, inter alia, brief and reply brief in                         
               entirety).  Thus, the burden has been shifted back to the examiner to consider anew the record as                      
               a whole with respect to the issue of obviousness, and based on that review, again set forth a                          
               prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed invention as a whole in order to                           
               maintain the ground of rejection.  See, e.g., Oetiker, supra.                                                          
                       It is apparent from the examiner’s position stated at pages 4-6 of the answer, that the                        
               examiner has not reestablished a prima facie case based on the claimed invention as a whole in                         
               light of the record as a whole, and accordingly, on this record, we reverse the ground of rejection.                   
                       The examiner’s decision is reversed.                                                                           







                                                              Reversed                                                                


                                                                - 3 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007