Appeal No. 1996-2960
Application 08/192,027
The examiner relies on the secondary references as disclosing (id.):
the incorporation of decorative print or indicia within the body of multiply
paper wherein the indicia or decorative pattern is visible through the
covering layer of pulp. The advantage of having the decorative pattern or
indicia in the inner layer is to provide tamper proof identification of the paper
product which also have the inherent property of having the indicia or
decorative pattern protected by an overlying layer of pulp.
The examiner concludes that (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4):
it would have been obvious to provide indicia or decorative pattern on the
inner layer or ply of the multiply tissue paper of the admitted prior art for [the]
above stated advantage.
It is the initial burden of the patent examiner to establish that claims presented in an
application for patent are unpatentable. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We have carefully considered the evidence and discussion
in support of the rejection presented by the examiner. However, a fair evaluation of the
references, applicants' specification and consideration of the claimed subject matter as a
whole, dictates a conclusion that the construction of the claimed subject matter from the
prior art teachings is not suggested by the record before us. To establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, there must be more than the demonstrated existence of all of the
components of the claimed subject matter. There must be some reason, suggestion, or
motivation found in the prior art whereby a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention would make the substitutions required. That knowledge
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007