Appeal No. 97-2504
Application 08/200,707
a printed on layer to the artisan, but also would have different
properties from a printed on layer which would render the two
products as not being the same. The examiner must consider the
patentability of the claim as a whole including the obviousness
of the “printed on” feature of the protective layer. Such
determination has not been made here.
The other main difference argued by appellants is that
there is no suggestion in the applied references for exposing a
part of the colored layer by defining an opening in the
protective layer. The examiner argues that as a general rule, it
would
have been obvious to the artisan to omit an element of a prior
art device and to lose the function of that element. Thus, the
examiner contends that selectively removing parts of the
protective layer and losing the protection would have been
obvious to the artisan. We do not agree.
The prior art places a protective layer over a colored
layer for the sole purpose of protecting the colored layer. Any
removal of this protective layer would defeat the very purpose of
this layer. The artisan, therefore, would not remove any portion
of this layer unless there was a benefit to be derived which
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007