Appeal 2007-1262
Application 10/697,532
method defined by claim 18 as well as the product defined by claim 1. We
agree.
In this regard, Casto discloses a method of forming a surface covering
panel product, such as wall board, having the appearance of building
material, such as grained wood, marble, and tile (Casto 1, ll. 1-9). This
product is made by first texturizing the product surface and then applying
pigment to the textured surface (Casto 1, ll. 89-106). Upon removal of
surplus pigment, the textured interstices of the surface contain pigment
whereas the non-textured, outermost portions of the surface do not (Casto 2,
ll. 27-36). More than one pigment color may be used in this process in order
to obtain the desired appearance (para. bridging pgs. 2-3).
Casto’s disclosure of first texturizing a surface and then applying
pigment to the textured surface would have suggested providing Hansson
with this sequence of steps because the results of this modification would
have been predictable. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). That is, an artisan would have reasonably
expected that Hansson’s desired product would result from this step
sequence in view of Casto’s teaching that the sequence yields this type of
product.
The Appellants argue that no proper reasoning or justification exists
for concluding that it would have been obvious to combine the applied
references to thereby yield the here-claimed method and product made
thereby (Br. 21). However, an obviousness conclusion is supported by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013