Appeal No. 94-4226
Application No. 07/838,345
teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to employ the types of synthetic resins claimed with a
reasonable expectation of obtaining the types of surface
structure useful for producing antiglare effect.
Finally, we note that claim 20 is directed to an article
which is produced by the process recited in claim 1. Claim 1,
as broadly interpreted, includes a skin (mold) described by
Nishiyama, a skin attached to a dashboard as described by
Nishiyama or a dashboard itself (if a polymeric film having a
particular surface structure is removed). See In re Thorpe,
777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“If the product in a
product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of
the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior
product is made by a different process.”)
In view of the forgoing, we agree with the examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter defined by claims 1, 2, 6, 8,
9, 12 through 17, 20, 23 and 24 would have obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants have not offered any evidence to the contrary. That
is, appellants have not demonstrated criticality of the claimed
features.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007