Appeal No. 95-4853 Page 6
Application No. 08/019,335
We make reference to the answer for the position of the
examiner and to the brief and reply brief for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective arguments articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the
rejection presented by the examiner in this appeal.
We find ourselves in agreement with appellants' basic
contention (brief, pages 9-11 and the reply brief) that the
teachings of Masui and Suzuki, even if combinable, would not
have rendered the claimed process prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, we note that the
method(s) defined by each of the three independent claims on
appeal include, as part of the separately claimed process(es),
the combined steps of: (1) vacuum forming a sheet-like material
into a predetermined shape in a vacuum forming die to obtain a
covering portion of a double-layer synthetic resin formed
article having a base portion and a covering portion; (2)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007