Ex parte HEE K. YOON, et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 96-1100                                                          
          Application 07/836,032                                                      

          specifically reject the examiner's argument that it would have              
          been obvious to discard the radiopaque element in the printing              
          materials, for the only suggestion for this is found via                    
          impermissible hindsight.                                                    
               Insofar as the second rejection of claim 1 is concerned, we            
          find ourselves in agreement with the appellants' position that              
          while Scholz teaches using a plasticizer in printing material for           
          an orthopaedic bandage, it does not teach using a plastisol,                
          which is not the same thing.                                                
               Among the limitations in independent claim 6 is that the               
          printing material be comprised of a water-based acrylic and  a              
          pigment.  Here, the examiner again points to Papp, which                    
          discloses an acrylic latex emulsion as an ingredient in another             
          example of a radiopaque printing material.  As was the case                 
          above, we share the appellants' view that there is no suggestion,           
          other than hindsight, which would have motivated an artisan to              
          separate the acrylic latex and the pigment from the remaining               
          ingredients and utilize them as printing material on the Freeman            
          orthopaedic bandage.                                                        
               The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima            
          facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,                
          1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007