Appeal No. 95-1042
Application 07/964,002
9). Park teaches use of cellophane (col. 5, lines 31-38) which
does not melt. 3
Fourth, in two examples in appellants’ specification
(Example 13, page 32 and Example 24, page 42) the slip is cast
onto a Mylar polyester sheet and fired. There is no disclosureŽ
that the sheet is removed from the film before firing. The films
after firing are disclosed as being strong and flexible. These
examples indicated that even if a thermoplastic fugitive support
sheet is used, a product having strength and flexibility as
recited in claim 31 can be formed.
For the above reasons, we conclude, based on the
preponderance of the evidence and argument in the record, that
the invention recited in appellants’ claim 31 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now turn to the rejection of claim 46.
The examiner acknowledges that he has applied no prior art
to claim 46, but argues that it would have been within the realm
of routine experimentation for one or ordinary skill in the art
3See The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 9th ed., 174 (Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1977).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007