Appeal No. 1998-1372
Application No. 08/295,708
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review we have reached the conclusion that
the applied prior art does not establish the prima facie
obviousness of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s rejection. Our reasons follow.
It is the examiner’s finding that Watanabe discloses a
combination of a molding and a clip for securing a molding to
a vehicle. The molding 11 of Watanabe has lateral ends
defining channels and the clip has an adhesive tape facing and
a plurality of plastic bearing surfaces 18-23 which contact
the molding and are received in the channels of the strip.
Watanabe does not disclose a metal substrate.
Nussbaum discloses a unitary molding or trim strip for a
vehicle which is adhesively attached to the vehicle by
adhesive 22. Nussbaum does not disclose a separate clip and
molding. The examiner, in his factual findings, refers us to
the first complete sentence of column 4 of Nussbaum which
states that if desired a conventional barrier layer, such as
an aluminum layer, can be interposed between the PVC body and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007