Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
(“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the
applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of
showing that they are not.”)
Although, as Appellants point out, the center region of roller 63 is
"provided to run over a batten bar" (Appeal Br. at 12), Appellants have not
directed out attention to any evidentiary support for their finding that the
apparatus shown in Hubbard Figure 7 would only make a weld
simultaneously on both sides of the roof membrane fastener. Thus, the
weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding.
Appellants have argued no other error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection for anticipation by Hubbard is
AFFIRMED.
-16-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013