Appeal No. 96-1619
Application 08/263,015
relied upon by the examiner as support for the obviousness
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 22-26 particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the view that the collective evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention as set forth in claims 22-26. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 22-26 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
In claim 22, “said plastic substrate
being composed of a polycarbonate or
acrylic material which when bent to
conform to said curved faceplate will
bend without fracturing and also when
bent remains wrinkle free to preserve
its optical properties” is a desired
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007