Appeal 2007-2868
Application 10/256,503
approximately ten times that of conventional cords that are presently in use”
(Specification 5:23-25). However, this unsupported statement in the
Specification falls far short of the requisite objective evidence which
convincingly demonstrates that chemically treated cords within the scope of
the appealed claims are patentably distinct from cords fairly disclosed by
Eisler. Appellants’ Specification provides no objective data which sets forth
a side-by-side comparison between cords produced by the claimed method,
under high tension or tension, and those produced by processes of the
admitted prior art, let alone cords produced by the methods of Eisler.
Indeed, Appellants have not established a distinction between the cords of
claim 1 processed under high tension and the cords of claims 7 and 16
processed under merely tension. In the absence of such evidence, the prima
facie case established by the Examiner stands unrebutted.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013