Appeal 2006-3158
Application 09/945,764
OPINION
The Examiner finds that JP ‘075 discloses a heat-sensitive stencil, and
teaches that, in order to increase the tensile strength of the stencil printing
master, a porous fiber film 7 is laminated onto a porous resin film 4 which is
provided on one surface of a thermoplastic resin film (Answer 4). The
Examiner further finds that JP ‘075 teaches that a high tensile strength is
required to prevent elongation of the stencil during the printing and
manufacturing process, and also teaches that fiber with strong tensile
strength is selected to form the porous fiber film 7 (id.). With regard to the
rejection of claim 1 on appeal, the Examiner recognizes that JP ‘075 lacks an
express teaching of the claimed limitation regarding the tensile strength of
the porous reinforcing layer (id.).4 However, the Examiner concludes that a
suitable tensile strength of the porous reinforcing layer is inherently
disclosed by JP ‘075 or it would have been an obvious optimization to one
of ordinary skill in this art, since JP ‘075 teaches that high tensile strength of
porous fiber layer 7 is required and teaches various high tensile strength
fibers such as glass fiber, metal fiber, carbon fiber, and polyester fiber
(Answer 4-5). We agree.
Appellant argues that the Examiner equates the porous fiber layer of
JP ‘075 to the porous reinforcing layer provided by the claimed invention,
thus ignoring relevant differences between these two layers (Br. 13; Reply
Br. 4). Appellant argues that the porous fiber layer of JP ‘075 is “essentially
a tissue paper” with fibers having a diameter of 20 microns or less, and
4 A discussion of Kinney and Mori is not necessary to our decision since
Kinney was only applied by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness for
limitations found in claim 2 on appeal, while Mori was also applied against
various dependent claims (Answer 4-6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007