Appeal No. 2002-0189
Application No. 08/526,914
number of the examiner’s findings of fact are unquestionably
erroneous. For example, contrary to the examiner’s findings, the
“cover sheet” 28 of Arnold is not adhesively laminated to the
“backing sheets” 22, 24. Similarly, the sheets or layers of
Arnold’s Fig. 2 laminate are not “fully overlapping and congruent
with each other” in accordance with appealed claim 1. In
addition to the foregoing, we observe that the examiner has
attempted to read the entire Fig. 2 structure of Arnold on the
appealed claim 1 laminated backing sheet and accordingly that the
examiner’s anticipation position is further deficient in that it
completely fails to account for the face sheet requirements of
the independent claim on appeal.
For the above stated reasons, we also cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 102 rejection of appealed claim 1 as being
anticipated by Arnold.
Finally, the § 103 rejection of all of the appealed claims
as being unpatentable over Arnold likewise cannot be sustained.
This is because the examiner’s obviousness conclusion fails to
even address much less supply the above discussed deficiencies of
Arnold with respect to the appealed claim 1 laminate.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007