Appeal No. 95-5115
Application No. 08/091,999
that the examiner has failed to carry his initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness and accordingly
that we cannot sustain his § 103 rejection based on Brown in
view of Otsuka or his § 103 rejection based on Kubota in view
of Brown.
The § 103 rejection based on Brown in view of Bilkadi
also cannot be sustained because the teachings of these
references are antithetical to their combination as proposed
by the examiner. Specifically, Brown’s teaching of a release
layer topcoat coated on a barrier layer militates against its
proposed combination with Bilkadi’s teaching of adding silica
to a coating in order to improve its abrasion and weathering
resistance. That is, these teachings would not have suggested
adding silica to Brown’s barrier layer so as to provide it
with Bilkadi’s abrasion and weathering resistance since this
barrier layer is coated with a release layer and thus not
subject to abrasion or weathering problems.
For analogous reasons, it would not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Oguchi, Japanese ‘464, Japanese ‘870,
Japanese ‘765 or Japanese ‘260 with the teachings of Brown in
the fashion stated by the examiner. In this regard, each of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007