Appeal No. 1997-4284
Application No. 08/471,760
The examiner relies upon Takeuchi for motivation to place
an opaque reflective layer between Bloom’s adhesive layer
(which is adjacent to the image) and the durable layer
(answer, page 5). Takeuchi discloses a hologram having,
between an adhesive layer (32) and a durable layer (34), a
holographic effect enhancing layer (4) (figure 15). The
holographic effect enhancing layer can be a thin reflective
metal film having a thickness not exceeding 200D which allows
great transmittance of light such that the holographic effect
is obtained and images below the film are not shielded (col.
7, lines 1-32). The examiner argues that one of ordinary
skill in the art, given Bloom’s opaquing fluid test discussed
above, and given that Takeuchi’s substrate can be either
opaque or transparent (col. 19, lines 36-37), would have been
motivated to adjust the thickness of Takeuchi’s holographic
effect enhancing layer as needed to obtain the desired
reflectance and to place this layer between Bloom’s adhesive
layer and protective layer to produce a protected imaged
transparency viewable in reflectance (answer, pages 5-6).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007