Appeal 2006-2950
Application 10/036,126
carried such burden. Accordingly, from our perspective, the claimed
functional limitation “for forming an electrically conductive antistatic layer”
recited in the appealed claims does not preclude the above combination
taught by Muys.
Accordingly, for the factual findings set forth above and in the
Answer, we concur with the Examiner that Muys and Gardener would have
rendered the subject matter recited in claims 1 through 12 and 17 through 19
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VII. ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
VIII. TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
cam
Paul A. Leipold
Patent Legal Staff
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650-2201
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013