Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 16
Application No. 08/110,269
shutter. Because it does not limit the type, one of ordinary
skill in the art could have selected an LC from the available
types.
Second, the appellant admits, “[a]t the time of filing of
the application, PDLC was a commercially available product.”
(Appeal Br. at 23.) He argues, however, “commercial
availability of PDLC on this date is not equivalent to
availability before the filing date, as section 102(a)
requires.” (Reply Br. at 4.) The examiner replies, “since
PDLC was commercially available at the time of the claimed
invention was filed [sic] and that [sic] the appellant has not
stated that PDLC is appellant's own product ... PDLC would
have been obvious.” (Examiner’s Answer at 9.)
As aforementioned, the appellant admits that PDLC was
commercially available as of the filing date of his
application. Specifically, he admits that sheets of the
material could be purchased from suppliers at the time.
(Spec. at 7.) We find that PDLC’s commercially availability
as of the filing date gives rise to a rebuttable presumption
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007