Appeal No. 2006-2560
Application No. 10/315,422
appellant’s argument that the outer layer covers unbleached cardboard so therefore it
must be opaque. We note, that Ranson teaches that the support boards may be cardboard
and makes no mention as to the cardboard’s appearance. Further, Ranson by stating
other suitable material leaves open the use of other materials. We are not persuaded by
appellant’s argument that since Ranson teaches that the printing is on the outer layer, the
outer layer must be opaque. Printing on transparent or opaque materials are both known
in the art as evidenced by Deschamps. Deschamps teaches that it is possible to print on
the transparent sheet and the layer below the transparent sheet. See last paragraph of
Deschamps’ disclosure. For the forgoing reasons we disagree with appellant’s
conclusion that Ranson is limited to use of an opaque cover sheet, as we do not find that
the evidence supports such a conclusion.
We turn next to appellant’s arguments directed to modifying Ranson with
Deschamps’ teaching of a transparent sheet with wrong reading printing on the side of
the transparent sheet which will not be on the outside of the book cover. As stated above,
we do not find that Ranson’s teaching is limited to opaque covers, as such we do not find
that one skilled in the art would be discouraged from using the teachings of Deschamps.
Further, contrary to appellant’s arguments, Deschamps states that the cover has
“advantages concerning appearance and durability” and that the “transparent sheet is not
at all expensive and leads to only a small increase in cost price of the cover.” Thus, one
skilled in the art would recognize that the transparent sheet of Deschamps does improve
durability. Further, we do not consider that the skilled artisan would be deterred from
applying Deschamps’ teachings due to cost, as the added cost leads to only a small
increase in price, which one may consider to be justified when considering the protection
given to the printed material by placing it under the transparent sheet. Further, while
Deschamps and Ranson discuss different types of books, we do not find, nor has
appellant provided any convincing evidence to support the position, that one skilled in
the art would not apply the principals of protecting one type of book’s cover to other
types of books.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007