Appeal 2006-2453
Application 10/302,391
Claims 6-9:
Appellants argue that Simonetti fails to disclose a leaf packet wherein the
membrane sheet has been reinforced in the area of the crease by a strip of
UV cured adhesive. Br. 14. The Examiner argues that Simonetti’s adhesive
would “inherently provide such reinforcement.” Answer 10. Appellants’
position is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Cheng, which we find
persuasive in establishing that the UV cured adhesive, as claimed, patentably
distinguishes over Simonetti’s adhesive. The Examiner has not provided an
adequate explanation as to why Dr. Cheng’s statements are not sufficient
proof that Simonetti’s leaf packet would not necessarily or inherently
possess the characteristics of the claimed leaf packet. We conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing that the claims are
anticipated by or unpatentable over Simonetti.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Simonetti; claims 2, 8, and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over, Simonetti; and claim 5 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simonetti.
Bray
Claims 6-9:
The Examiner argues that Bray teaches the leaf packet as claimed in
claim 6 having an adhesive to reinforce the fold line. Answer 6. According
to the Examiner, the claim limitation of the adhesive being UV curable is a
process limitation and the patentability of the claimed leaf packet does not
depend on its method of production. Answer 6. The Examiner has,
however, apparently disregarded the claim limitation requiring a UV-cured
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013