Appeal 2007-0746
Application 10/139,496
product appearing to be the same as that claimed, even though made by a
different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove otherwise. See
id. at 697, 227 USPQ at 966.
Based upon the above, we affirm the § 102(b) rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the § 103(a) rejection of claim
10 mirror those made with respect to the § 102(b) rejection. Thus, we also
affirm the rejection of claim 10 under § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under § 112, ¶ 1, and
§ 102(b). We also affirm the rejection of claim 10 under § 103(a).
Pursuant to § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of
claims 4-8, and 10 under § 112, ¶ 1; and claims 4-8 under § 102(b), as these
claims were not argued separately.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
lbg
MEDLEN & CARROLL, LLP
101 HOWARD STREET
SUITE 350
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013