Ex Parte Zschieschang et al - Page 8

               Appeal  2007-1932                                                                            
               Application 11/066,550                                                                       
                      transfer process.  The substrate is flexible and can be contacted                     
                      with a pressing member.                                                               
               (Answer at 3.)                                                                               
               22. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify                         
               Okazaki by using organic conductor materials because one of ordinary skill                   
               in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.                               
               23. In response to Zschischang's arguments that Okazaki does not teach                       
               the specific hydrophilic and hydrophobic characters of the interfaces                        
               required in claim 1 (Br. at 10, last paragraph, and at 12, first full paragraph),            
               the Examiner "agrees in part," but argues that "the advantages of 'pretreating               
               or having' areas to form different absorption characteristics and having the                 
               printing medium/ink to possess the same adsorbtivity of the substrate to                     
               which the ink pattern is desired to be applied are commonplace in the art of                 
               printing patterns," noting that Choy and Teng have been cited in support of                  
               this position.  (Answer at 4.)                                                               
               C. Discussion                                                                                
                      The issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has made out a prima                      
               facie case for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  Obviousness is a                       
               conclusion of law based on underlying findings of fact.  In re Gartside, 203                 
               F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  If the underlying                   
               findings of fact are erroneous, the legal conclusion cannot stand. “[T]he                    
               examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other                
               ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”  In re Oetiker,                
               977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  The concept                     
               of prima facie obviousness is a procedural mechanism, which requires the                     

                                                     8                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013