Appeal No. 96-3822
Application 08/143,384
the desired properties of the wear layer" (page 7 of appellants'
main brief). In my view, ¶ 18. of the Ross declaration is
neither an admission nor evidence of either obviousness or non-
obviousness. It is gross hearsay unsupported by any underlying
facts.
The majority also directs attention to page 5 of the
specification, an apparent reference to lines 12 through 15 of
said page, as evidence that there was a belief as of appellants'
filing date that embossing an inorganic wear layer would destroy
the properties of the wear layer. Therein it is stated:
It was believed that flexing or embossing would create
unacceptable cracking, i.e. cracks which would be
noticeable, reduce gloss level, or lead to unacceptable
staining.
Nonetheless, this self-serving disclosure by appellants in their
specification suffers from the same shortcomings as ¶ 18. of the
Ross declaration: it is unsupported by any underlying facts.
In conclusion, I would reverse the examiner's rejection of
the claims of the grounds that the examiner has failed to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007