Appeal No. 1998-2188
Application No. 08/581,424
With respect to claim 8: Kano et al. describes a
radiographic panel having all the characteristic
features of the claimed invention except a film-
forming resin layer containing a polysiloxane
structure-containing oligomer or a perfluoroalkyl
group-containing oligomer (see at least figure 1).
Takasu et al. describes a radiographic panel having
an improved protective layer produced from a film-
forming resin layer containing a polysiloxane
structure-containing oligomer or a perfluoroalkyl
group-containing oligomer (see at least the
abstract). The improved protective layer of Takasu
et al. is superior to a conventional protective
layer because it produces a surface that exhibits a
lower coefficient of friction and a higher
resistance to abrasion (see column 11, lines 1-15,
and column 12, lines 25-37). Thus, the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to substitute
the improved protective layer of Takasu et al. for
the second protective layer 13b of Kano et al. in
view of its superior properties.
Appellants argue inter alia that there is a lack of a
suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of the
references, and that the examiner has resorted to
impermissible hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of the
claimed invention (Brief, Appendix II, page iii).
In response to appellants’ arguments, the examiner
indicates Answer, page 7) that:
In the modification of the panel of Kano et al., the
skilled artisan would have only changed the
outermost protective layer so as not to lose the
moisture protection attained by the two layers of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007