Appeal No. 1997-0731
Application 08/362,151
references do not suggest this limitation (brief, page 10).
The examiner argues that Yabe discloses a “roughened
patterned surface which would give the obvious improvement of
enhanced bonding benefits” (answer, page 6). Yabe teaches
that his polycarbonate sheet is conventional and not
particularly limited, and has thereon a pattern which is
formed by a method which is not particularly limited and which
may be conventional silk screen printing, hot stamping and the
like (col. 2, lines 54-55; col. 3, lines 6-8). The examiner
does not point out, and it is not apparent, where Yabe
indicates that this pattern is roughened or that it enhances
bonding.
The examiner argues that appellant’s roughened surface is
made obvious by Yabe’s “teaching of an engraved surface which
results in a three dimensional or uneven surface” (answer,
page 7). Yabe’s polycarbonate sheet is pushed toward the mold
surface by the injected resin, thereby causing the sheet to
follow the engraved unevenness of the mold (col. 2, lines 39-
44). Appellant’s claim 1, however, requires that the blank
itself, which is adapted to be placed into at least one mold
half, has a roughened surface. The examiner has not pointed
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007