Appeal No. 96-3726
Application No. 08/074,009
property limitations, and accordingly the section 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 and 2 over this reference also can not
be sustained.
Wagner likewise fails to disclose at least some of the
aforementioned properties of the independent claims on appeal.
However, as an alternative to the unacceptable position that
such properties are not “patentably limiting”, the examiner
urges that these properties are inherently possessed by
patentee’s polyurethane film and accordingly that Wagner
anticipates the appellants’ independent claims. This
inherency position is based upon the fact that patentee’s
polyurethane film may be made from a polyester polyol and a
diisocyanate such as n-hexyl diisocyanate and the fact that
this polyurethane film is intended to provide the substrate
(such as a plastic substrate) upon which it is placed with
“the aesthetic appeal of leather” (column 1, line 21). As yet
another alternative position under section 103 with respect to
independent “arrangement” claims 10 and 19, the examiner
contends that “it would have been obvious to optimize the
physical properties of the Wagner . . . products to within the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007