Appeal No. 1997-4284
Application No. 08/471,760
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
Bloom discloses a method for making a reflective imaged
transparency which differs from appellants’ method in that
there is no reflective opaque area laminated onto the imaged
transparency along with the durable layer (col. 18, lines 41-
44). Bloom makes his article reflective by use of an opaque
substrate (col. 9, lines 32-35). Thus, Bloom’s image is
viewed through the durable layer, the reflection coming from
the substrate, whereas appellants’ image is viewed through the
substrate, the reflection coming from the reflective opaque
area of the transferable reflective protective overcoat.
The examiner argues that Bloom teaches that opaquing
fluids can be successfully applied to the durable layer to
provide a reflective background (answer, page 4). The portion
of Bloom relied upon by the examiner in support of this
argument (col. 21, lines 57-67) pertains to an opaquing fluid
test of the durable layer, wherein it is determined whether
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007