Appeal No. 2007-0412 Page 12
Application No. 10/195,609
1 whether that necessarily means the Willbanks fabrics would not possess the
2 properties recited in the claims. We remind Appellants that “the Patent Office is
3 not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it
4 and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith,” In
5 re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 534, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
6
7 CONCLUSION OF LAW
8 On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
9 erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art. The Examiner’s evidence and
10 rationale is sufficient to make out a prima facie cases of anticipation and
11 obviousness of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) over the
12 Willbanks references under In re Best and In re Spada.
13 Appellants have not sustained their burden of overcoming the prima facie
14 case made out by the Examiner.
15
16 DECISION
17 The examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24 and 29 is
18 affirmed.
19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
20 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 CFR
21 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
22 AFFIRMED
23
24 HCL
25
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013