Appeal No. 1997-1682
Application No. 08/270,198
the art. In the present case, we concur with appellant that
when the criticized claim language is read in light of the
present specification one of ordinary skill in the art would
readily understand that "the components are sufficiently
immiscible so that when exposed to light they do not react
sufficiently to cause yellowing - i.e. significant reaction
together is avoided so as not to cause yellowing" (page 3 of
Brief). Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection under § 112, second paragraph.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2 and
6 under § 103 over Nakajima in view of Olson. As explained by
the examiner, Nakajima clearly teaches a vinyl film laminate
comprising a plasticized polyvinylchloride layer, a UV-curable
top coat and a UV-absorbing layer situated between the
polyvinyl-chloride layer and the top coat. In our view,
Nakajima clearly describes the features recited in claims 2
and 6 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Since
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, we find no error
in the examiner's rejection. Since Nakajima describes the
features of claims 2 and 6, it is of no moment that, as argued
by appellant, Nakajima does not recognize the problem of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007