Appeal No. 1996-0903
Application No. 07/692,211
method, not an article. In the present case, the examiner has
pointed to no reason, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
apply Nakamura’s plastic composition to a member or substrate
of a rotogravure printing medium. Accordingly, we cannot agree
that the examiner has made out a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claims 1 and 69 and the claims
which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. See e.g., In
re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531-1532
(Fed. Cir. 1988). We must therefore reverse the § 103
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 19, and 69.
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed with respect to claims 41 through 44, 47 and 53, but
is reversed with respect to claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 19 and
69.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007