Appeal No. 1997-0533
Application No. 08/353,916
those of ordinary skill would have a reasonable
expectation of success. [Citation omitted].
Accordingly, our analysis of the examiner’s rejection under §
103 must first consider whether the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed
process should be carried out.
As noted by the examiner, Anderson teaches
that the metal foil may be “imprinted” after its lamination
(Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4, citing Anderson, column
3, lines 33-35). The examiner applies Brinley for the4
teaching of embossing and laminating the layers simultaneously
(Answer, page 4). However, we do not agree with the
examiner’s analysis of these references. Anderson teaches
that the backing layer 10 (which can be a metal foil or foil
laminated to a paper backing) must be impervious and smooth
(column 1, lines 71-72; column 2, lines 71-72; column 3, lines
5-7). Anderson also teaches that the applied polyethylene
film should be embossed by contact with the scored or
4The examiner has applied Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary, p. 577, to show the definition of "imprint"
includes any mark or depression made by pressure and thus is
equivalent to the claimed "embossing" step (Answer, page 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007