Claims 10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kohda in view of Hermes and Takayanagi.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the aforementioned rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are not well founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner's
rejections.
As an initial matter, appellants respectfully request that claims 10, 15 and 16
be considered together. See Brief, page 3. Accordingly, we select claim 10, the
sole independent claim as representative of appellants invention and limit our
consideration thereto. 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is
the examiner’s position that, “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art to substitute the coating composition of Kohda et al. with that of the
secondary references because the secondary references suggest superior coating
properties.” See Answer, pages 3 and 4. We disagree.
We find that the reference to Kohda discloses a radiation image storage panel
having a phosphor layer and a protective film superposed thereon. See column 1,
lines 1-12. We find the protective film is exemplified by polytetrafluoroethylene and
polytrifluoroethylene. See column 10, lines 32-37. The film is fixed onto the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007