CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 25





              Interference No. 105,019                                                                                              
              Correa v. Roberts                                                                                                     
                      It appears that Correa has not fully appreciated (1) that the prior art need not teach the                    
              range or "spread" recited in claims 5 and 6 but only something failing within the recited range to                    
              meet those claims, and (2) that it, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof as is indicated in                 
              37 CFR § 1.637(a). Correa makes no mention of what was the standard or conventional width of                          
              the absorbent core for a sanitary napkin of various types, at the time of filing of Correa's involved                 
              application on November 22, 1993. Correa makes no mention of the width of the absorbent core                          
              for sanitary napkins of various types which were sold on the open market at the time of filing of                     
              Correa's involved application on November 22, 1993. While it is true that Sneller does not                            
              specify the width of its absorbent core in conjunction with its raised barrier which is 15mm wide,                    
              it cannot be reasonably disputed that one with ordinary skill in the art, who according to the                        
              parties typically possesses at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry or chemical engineering,                        
              material science or other fields of engineering such as mechanical engineering and three to five                      
              years of experience in industry, would not see fit to use a width for the absorbent core that is                      
              consistent with what was standard, conventional, or generally available at the time.                                  

                      What is before us is not an obviousness rejection from an examiner in an ex parte appeal,                     
              where it is the examiner who bears the initial burden of showing prima facie obviousness. Here,                       
              the initial designation of claims as corresponding or not corresponding to the count in the Notice                    
              Declaring Interference is presumed to be correct and it is party Correa as the moving party                           
              seeking to change the status quo who bears the burden of proof to show nonobviousness. In that                        
              context, the silence of Correa's Preliminary Motion 5 with regard to the standard or conventional                     
              core width in the industry or what was generally available on the market is deafening. To be                          
                                                             - 25                                                                   






Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007