Appeal No. 2005-1369
Application 10/307,464
430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). As indicated previously, the appellants
have not carried their burden of showing that Cavagna’s product
does not actually possess the characteristics of the product
defined by appealed independent claim 1.
Analogous reasoning applies to the separately argued
dependent claims. For example, although Cavagna contains no
express teaching of the internal bond strength values defined by
dependent claim 4, it is reasonable to regard patentee’s product
as inherently possessing such internal bond strength values since
this product and the appellants’ claimed product are intended for
similar uses (e.g., as packaging material) and therefore would
require similar strength characteristics. On this record, the
appellants have provided no evidence in support of a contrary
view.
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed
in the Answer, it is our ultimate determination that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of unpatentability which the
appellants have failed to successfully rebut with argument or
evidence of patentability. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007