Appeal 2006-3304
Application 10/203,905
characteristic “split at least to 80%.” Instead, the Appellants simply argue
that the Examiner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that the prior
art fabrics possess this characteristic. However, this argument is
unpersuasive. For the reasons detailed above and in the Answer, a
prima facie of unpatentability is supported by the Examiner’s uncontested
findings and technical reasoning.
It is our ultimate determination, therefore, that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of unpatentability which the Appellants have
failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of patentability. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). It follows that we hereby sustain each of the § 102 and § 103
rejections before us on this appeal.
To the extent this appeal includes the Examiner’s double patenting
and provisional double patenting rejections (see Br. 4 and Answer 2-3), we
summarily sustain these rejections since the Appellants, rather than
contesting them, merely indicate a willingness to overcome them by
submitting Terminal Disclaimers (Br. 4).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013