Appeal No. 2003-1625
Application No. 09/341,669
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in
the answer, we also hereby sustain the examiner’s Section 102
rejections of claims 28 and 29 as being anticipated by Wanat and
Numrich respectively.
Finally, for reasons analogous to those discussed above and
in the answer, we likewise hereby sustain the examiner’s Section
102 and Section 103 rejections of claims 14-16, 18, 19 and 21
based on Wanat and of claims 14-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25
based on Numrich. While the Wanat and Numrich references do not
expressly disclose the specific yellow index characteristic
required by these claims, it is reasonable to believe that the
respective molding products of Wanat and Numrich would
necessarily and inherently possess this characteristic. This is
because the yellow-reducing goals of Wanat and Numrich correspond
to those of the appellants and because the molding compositions
and molding processes of Wanat and Numrich are indistinguishable
from those claimed by the appellants as previously explained.
Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products (and the
processes for producing them) are identical or substantially
identical, the Patent and Trademark Office can require an
applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily
or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007