Appeal No. 2005-2515
Application No. 09/911,532
heat resistance, heat shrinkage ratio, mechanical properties and the degree of
polarization. (Answer at page 3 and 5.) (See Utsumi ‘953 at columns 1 and 7-11; and
Utsumi ‘772 at columns 2, 3, 4, and 8.) From the express suggestions in both Utsumi
references, we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have used PEN in place of PET in Rogers to make the
multilayer interference film. We find that appellants’ arguments to the process of
making the film go beyond the express limitations recited in the article of manufacture,
and we find no express support for these arguments in the language of independent
claim 30. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 30 and its dependent claims 31-35.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 30-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007