Appeal 2006-1989
Application 09/772,278
Patent 5,996,948
Since the offsets 52 in Buff ‘062 are disposed or formed over
the support wire 40, they cannot be “located either in the
upright sections (19) of the wire legs (16) or in said first rim
(12)” but can only be located at the coupling between the
handles 38 and support members 50 as Buff ‘062 teaches. Thus
the members 52 cannot be located in the specified alternative
locations called for in reissue claim 1.
We disagree.
As shown by Findings of Fact 8 and 9, Appellant describes his handle
15 as part of leg 26. Thus, it is reasonable to view the offset between Buff’s
handle 38 and support member 50 as being located in an upright section of a
wire leg since both 38 and 50 can form part of the leg.
Third, at pages 9-10 of the Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner has
erred because while Buff has offsets the Examiner fails to show that Buff
has offsets “to facilitate the nesting of a multiplicity of stands into one
another without significant wedging” as recited in claim 1. We disagree.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or
obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows sound basis for
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013