Appeal No. 94-4226
Application No. 07/838,345
articles are dependent on the utility of the articles involved
and since the skin described in Nishiyama can be applied to any
articles for the purposes of providing antiglare effect, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply
the skin described in Nishiyama on articles having the claimed
surface materials with a reasonable expectation of providing
antiglare effect.
Appellants further argue that Nishiyama does not teach or
suggest employing a film, much less a release film. See claims
1, 14 and 24. However, appellants do not define a film or a
release film in a manner that would distinguish it from the thin
skin described in Nishiyama. See the entire specification.
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language in
question, we agree with the examiner that the language in
question is inclusive of the skin described in Nishiyama.
Moreover, appellants argue that Nishiyama would not have
suggested the types of synthetic resins recited in claims 15 and
16. However, Nishiyama teaches that any suitable synthetic
resins, inclusive of the claimed resins, can be employed to form
a cover skin useful for antiglare purposes. See column 5, lines
12-14. Appellants also do not dispute that the claimed synthetic
resins, including their properties, are known. Given these
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007