Appeal No. 1996-4072
Application No. 08/133,283
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some
objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have
led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
The examiner relies on Morello for the teaching of
placing an applique (15, fig. 3) in a molding cavity prior to
injection molding a base material (11) in the formation of a
panel. The examiner notes that Morello discloses forming more
layers on the "resultant panel" (answer, page 3). Morello
does not teach that the applique as placed in the mold
comprises more than one layer. Moreover, the examiner
acknowledges that Morello does not expressly disclose covering
the exposed edge portion of the applique (insert) on its
front, back and edge as called for in claim 46 (answer, pages
5 and 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007