obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the case before us, the examiner relies upon a combination of two references to reject the claimed
subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The basic premise of the rejection is
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the indicia bearing
sheet of Whalen for the transparent sheet of Malhotra. See Answer, page 7. We disagree.
We find that Whalen discloses an emergency medical data card, wherein a letter size blank paper
form is completed and reduced twice by xerography to slightly smaller than credit card size. See
Abstract and column 1, lines 38-57. Subsequently, the sheet is attached to a rigid plastic card. Id.
The card may thereafter be surrounded by a laminate plastic. See Figures 2 and 4, and column 2, lines
8-22. In addition, the reduced paper may be mounted on the rigid plastic by use of an adhesive. See
column 3, lines 1-2.
Notwithstanding our findings, there is no disclosure in Whalen for the utilization of a transparent
sheet in place of paper. Neither is a backing member disclosed which provides a light reflecting
backing, particularly over a wrong reading image (a mirror image). Nor has the examiner addressed
the limitation of the claimed subject matter directed to the transparent substrate member having a glass
transition temperature, T , substantially above that of toner particles.
g
In order to remedy these deficiencies, Malhotra is combined with Whalen. Although Malhotra is
directed to a transparent substrate for receiving or containing a xerographic image, Abstract and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007