Appeal No. 97-2504
Application 08/200,707
would offset the loss of protection. The prior art suggests no
benefit to be derived in removing part of the protective layer.
Appellants’ specification discloses that the ability to write on
the exposed portions of the colored layer is a benefit they
desire to achieve. In our view, the artisan would find no
suggestion for exposing a part of the colored layer from the
applied prior art, but rather, such suggestion can only come from
appellants’ own specification. Such hindsight reconstruction of
the invention is improper. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 as unpatentable over Cocco in view of Sugaya.
With respect to the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Kogo, the examiner basically asserts that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to place a protective
cover over predetermined parts of Kogo’s printed color pattern 60
[answer, page 6]. Appellants again argue that the protective
layer being “printed” over the colored layer is not taught by
Kogo, and that Kogo would teach away from protecting only
predetermined portions of the colored layer with the protective
layer.
We are again persuaded by both of these arguments. The
examiner has not provided any factual support for the position
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007