Appeal No. 2006-1341
Application No. 09/782,180
Regarding claims 2 and 4, we agree with the examiner that
Ohuchi evidences the obviousness of using a resin material for
the protective tape of Toyosawa. While appellants contend that
the combination of specific resins provide unexpected results,
claim 2 does not specify any type of resin, and a portion of the
specification cited by appellants hardly establishes that the
selection of any of the various resins recited in claim
4 achieves results that would be truly unexpected to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Appellants rely upon no objective
evidence which compares the use of the claimed resins with other
types of resins. Indeed, the cited portion of the specification
provides no objective data.
Concerning claim 3, appellants have not rebutted the
examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been obvious to
employ the particular resin of Horiuchi, having a Youngs modulus
falling within the claimed range, as the protective tape of
Toyosawa. Appellants’ argument focuses upon the same argument
against the rejection of claims 2 and 4, namely, that the
protective tape of Ohuchi is not a reinforcement tape in the
final article. Again, however, we emphasize that the claims on
appeal do not preclude removal of the reinforcement member during
a latter stage of processing.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007