Appeal No. 94-4226
Application No. 07/838,345
We now turn to the rejection of claims 3, 10, 18, 19 and 25
over Nishiyama. Claims 3, 18, 19 and 25 require that the
elevations be formed by using at least one inorganic or organic
additive in the film. Claim 10 requires the use of a uniaxially
or biaxially oriented film which has been heat-set. However, the
examiner has not explained why the use of a particular film or
particular inorganic or organic additives for forming elevations
on the skin described in Nishiyama would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we determine that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
regarding the subject matter defined by claims 3, 10, 18, 19 and
25.
In summary:
(1) We affirm the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,
2, 6, 8, 9, 12 through 17, 20, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
and
(2) We reverse the examiner’s decision to reject claims 3,
10, 18, 19 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007