Appeal No. 94-4226
Application No. 07/838,345
through 17, 20, 23 and 24 is well-founded. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12
through 17, 20, 23 and 24. However, we reverse the examiner’s
decision to reject claims 3, 10, 18, 19 and 25. Our reasons for
these determinations follow.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants argue at
page 3 of the Brief that:
The claims do not stand or fall together. Each of
the claims is independently patentable, except that
claims 1, 17, and 20, stand or fall together, for the
reasons outlined below.
However, claim 20, unlike claim 1, is directed to a product.
Accordingly, we will address the limitations of all of the
appealed claims, except for claim 17 which stands or falls with
claim 1. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
We consider first the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8,
9, 12 through 17, 20, 23 and 24 over the Nishiyama disclosure.
Claim 1 recites a process for producing an article having at
least one surface exhibiting antireflection properties. The
process involves applying a surface of a polymeric film having a
particular surface structure onto at least one surface of the
article. The particular surface structure of the polymeric film
is characterized as having “individual, randomly distributed
elevations, wherein the elevations rise 0.01 to 15 microns above
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007