Ex Parte Kiraly et al - Page 5

                  Appeal 2007-2415                                                                                         
                  Application 11/200,690                                                                                   

                                        ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS                                                           
                         The Examiner found that Birkholz discloses the invention as claimed                               
                  with the exception of a lenticular assembly.  (Answer 3).  The Examiner                                  
                  notes that Birkholz teaches that suitable label stock includes stamp grade                               
                  paper.  (Answer 4).  The Examiner further found that Sekiguchi discloses the                             
                  use of a lenticular lens on an image printed on an underlying web, such as a                             
                  postage stamp.  (Answer 3).  The Examiner concluded that it would have                                   
                  been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to                         
                  have provided Birkholz’s labels with a lenticular viewing member as taught                               
                  by Sekiguchi to facilitate viewing of the images on Birkholz’s labels.                                   
                  (Answer 4).                                                                                              
                         Appellants dispute the Examiner’s proposed motivation for combining                               
                  the applied prior art, arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not                           
                  have been motivated to modify Birkholz to include the lenticular member of                               
                  Sekiguchi because such modification would destroy the intended function of                               
                  Birkholz.  (Br. 8).  In particular, Appellants maintain that Sekiguchi’s                                 
                  “plastic or glass lenticular member would encapsulate the top surface of the                             
                  stamp, substantially impair contact of the dissipative layer 20 with water                               
                  applied over the stamp, and thereby defeat the Birkholz purpose/function of                              
                  making the stamp easily removed or washed-off.”  (Br. 8).                                                
                         Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find that the facts and reasons                            
                  set forth by the Examiner provide a reasonable basis to conclude that one of                             
                  ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the                                       
                  references in the manner claimed.   See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127                              
                  S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (A prima facie case of                                     
                  obviousness is established where the Examiner demonstrates that the                                      

                                                            5                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013