Appeal No. 1997-0853
Application No. 08/308,076
on McElroy are readily apparent. Thus, the examiner contends
that “[t]he selection of the type of sheets (plastic and
water-impermeable, paper stock) used and the type of adhesive
(permanent and transparent) would depend on the intended use.”
See the answer at page 6. But McElroy, a reference which
relates to labels only, contains no disclosure related to
appellant’s “intended use” of a “business form” which includes
a second transparent water-impermeable plastic sheet to
protect a first paper sheet when the second sheet is applied
thereto. We agree with appellant that McElroy does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject
matter defined by rejected claims 1-7. The examiner’s
rejection is not sustained.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KOBAYASHI
Appealed claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Kobayashi. As with McElroy, the Kobayashi
publication similarly fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the subject matter defined by rejected claims
1-13. Although Kobayashi arguably relates to the field of
business forms (see column 7, lines 42-45 of Kobayashi which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007