Appeal No. 95-4091
Application No. 08/106,742
therefrom. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968). However, the examiner’s explanation that the
“percent light transmittance in the resulting prelaminate
would clearly depend upon the operating conditions of the
laminating step of the process,” is inadequate to reasonably
draw an inference or conclusion that Sato’s process could be
modified to achieve a transparency of 85%.
Our conclusion is supported by an analysis of Sato’s
operating conditions. Reference to Table I of Sato discloses
an inverse correlation between transparency and temperature
for Exp. I. and a direct correlation between temperature and
transparency for Exp. II. It is accordingly reasonable to
conclude that no inferences can be drawn between the operating
conditions of Sato’s method and transparency.
Based upon the above analysis, we have determined that
the examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by the facts. “Where the legal conclusion [of
obviousness] is not supported by the facts it cannot stand.”
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007