Appeal No. 2006-0778
Application No. 10/266,917
necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990).
Inherency “may not be established by a probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances in not sufficient.” Ex parte
Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986). Also,
the examiner has the initial burden of providing such evidence
or technical reasoning. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Hence, in view of the examiner’s own recognition that
Goulait does not specifically disclose the use of a spunlaced
fabric, and the examiner’s failure to meet his burden (as
discussed above), we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1, 3, 8, 10 through 23, 25 through 32, 36, 38, and 39 as
being anticipated by Goulait.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 1 through 32,
36-41 and 53-55 as being obvious in view of Goulait
in view of Menzies
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 7 through 13 of the answer.
Appellants’ position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 5 through 7 of the brief. Appellants again assert that
Goulait fails to teach or suggest the recitations of appellants’
independent claims 1 and 53 for the reasons expressed, supra, in
connection with the anticipation rejection. Appellants argue
that Menzies does not cure these asserted deficiencies of
Goulait.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007