Appeal No. 2005-0214
Application No. 09/742,653
1985) (“The patentability of a product does not depend on its
method of production . . . “).1 The burden shifts to appellant
to come forward with evidence that the claimed product materially
differs from a prior art product. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d
799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Absent such
evidence, as in the present case, we therefore affirm the
rejection.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 63-65 as being
obvious over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Torobin and further in
view of British patent 5,511,060
Claim 63-65 depend upon claim 60. We also note that
appellant argues that claim 63-65 depend upon claim 60, and
therefore include the recitation that the non-adhesive material
forms comprise vacuum metallized or sputtered deposits.
For the same reasons, therefore, that we affirmed the
rejection of claim 60, we also affirm this rejection.
VII. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 73 and 75-77 as
being obvious over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Torobin and
further in view of Calhoun ‘178
Claims 73 and 75-77 depend upon claim 60. Hence, for the
same reasons that we affirmed the rejection of claim 60, we
affirm this rejection.
VIII. Conclusion
We reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 31-33,
35-40, 42, 46-52, 55, and 59 as being obvious over Rusincovitch.
However, we affirm all other rejections.
1 We need not discuss Torobin in this regard.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007