Appeal No. 2006-0774 8
Application No. 09/952,349
claims on appeal. Moreover, a prior yarn package wound in a
trial and error process would not be viewed by one of ordinary
skill in the art as the type of predetermined “hypothetically
wound ideal yarn package” used by appellant in carrying out the
processes of the present application.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the examiner has
not met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation based on inherency with regard to either of the
Mayer or Lieber patents. Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mayer, or that of claims 1 and 6
through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Lieber. It follows that the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007