Appeal No. 1998-2910
Application No. 08/500,282
distinguishable from any such substrate surface, it is up to
appellant to show how the disclosed textured surface of the
instant invention differs from other textured surfaces. Yet,
there is no disclosure in the instant application of the
textured surface being unique, in any regard, from textured
surfaces of any substrates. Appellant calls this textured
surface a "primary feature of the invention" [brief-page 9].
Yet, it is interesting to note that the original claims never
even mentioned such a "textured surface." Moreover, at page
7, lines 5-7, of the instant specification, it is stated that
"the substrate can be composed of any flat or textured
material composition required as long as an appropriate binder
or adhesive layer is used." Thus, it is clear that there is
no criticality to the surface being "textured." It is only
important that proper adhesion is attained. As the examiner
points out, it would have been obvious that, in general,
better adhesion is attained with a textured, as opposed to a
smooth, surface. Since there is clearly no criticality to the
claimed "textured surface," we fail to find a distinction
between the claimed "textured surface" and any prior art
substrate surface which will be "textured" to some degree,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007