Appeal No. 1997-0085
Application 08/335,892
As for the examiner's § 103 rejections, we perceive
substantial merit in the appellants' arguments against the
examiner's conclusion of obviousness. In particular, we agree
with the appellants that even if the plates of the primary
references were subjected to the treatments of the secondary
references, the resulting plates cannot be regarded as
possessing distortion values of the type defined by the
independent claims on appeal. Indeed, the examiner points to
nothing and we find nothing independently in the secondary
references which reflects that the treatments of Lu or Locey
would be even capable of producing the here claimed distortion
values.
In light of the foregoing, we also cannot sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-21 as being
unpatentable over Martens in view of Lu or Locey or his § 103
rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21 as being unpatentable over
Gibson or Worns in view of Lu or Locey.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007