Appeal 2006-1483 Application 10/159,395 be extrapolated to define the claimed foreshortening ridge as an inherent feature of the illustrated papers. [Reply Br. 2-3.] This argument is not well taken. First, as undisputed by the Appellants, the figures showing a single point of the x-y and z-y planes, together with Morgan’s written description discussed supra, appear to indicate that Morgan’s tissue papers are identical or substantially identical to the claimed tissue papers. Moreover, as indicated supra, Morgan’s tissue papers appear to be made by substantially the same method as the Appellants,’ including a creping step, which according to page 17 of the Appellants’ Specification, will produce "foreshortening," as required by claim 22. In view of the foregoing, we concur with the Examiner that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of anticipation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(a). V. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. VI. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cam 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007