Appeal No. 2006-1062
Application No. 10/246,994
Regarding claims 6 and 7, we agree with the examiner that,
based on De Guzman, it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art “to provide a tab in cooperation with
and extending from each protective sheet cover element in
a stack of protective sheet cover elements with an adhesive free
tab to facilitate removal of a sheet cover element from the
stack as well as enable a quantity of the elements to be
ascertained upon visual inspection” (paragraph bridging pages
4 and 5 of answer). We are not persuaded by appellant’s
argument that there is nothing in De Guzman “that relates to
protecting a surface not being painted from a surface being
patented” (page 8 of brief, third paragraph). As explained by
the examiner, De Guzman is cited for establishing that it was
known in the art to use tabs to facilitate removing a sheet from
a stack and to prompt the user regarding the number of sheets
remaining in the pack.
We also find no fault in the examiner’s conclusion that,
based on the teachings of Frazier or Su, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the lower
most backing layer from the working surface around to the non-
working area to ensure proper tightness or tension of the cover
elements, or to inform the user when the bottom layer is reached.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007