Appeal 2006-3437
Application 10/702,801
application to be susceptible to a rejection under obviousness-type double
patenting.
We now turn to the Section 103 rejections of the appealed claims
wherein Ross is the "primary" reference. We fully concur with the
Examiner that Ross fairly discloses the claimed method of applying an
optical coating, such as a metal, reflective, holographic or retroreflective
coating, to a metallic article or base by transferring the optical coating to the
article surface either directly from a deposition substrate or through an
intermediate support. We also agree with the Examiner that Ross fairly
teaches removing the deposition substrate or transfer support by a solvent or
the like to complete the transfer of the optical coating. While Ross does not
expressly disclose the use of a presently claimed ceramic-containing
bonding element, Ross specifically discloses that "[v]arious adhesives, well
known in the art, can be applied to one surface of the coatings for
subsequent attachment to a final or intermediate surface or as a
transportation means from the base to another surface and then subsequent
removal of the adhesive due to the differential surface contact between the
transfer media and the final surface such that the adhesive will separate on
the coatings level while the coatings are retained on the final surface" (col.
38, ll. 1-8). Accordingly, since Hastings teaches the use of a ceramic-
containing adhesive for forming metal laminates, and Appellants' admitted
prior art establishes that the claimed ceramic-containing bonding element
was known in the art, we wholly support the Examiner's legal conclusion
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select
the Hastings adhesive as one of the well known various adhesives of Ross.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007