Appeal No. 1997-3767 Page 3
Application No. 08/443,556
protective film.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Futamoto et al. (Futamoto) 4,840,844 June 20, 1989
Kobliska et al. (Kobliska) 4,861,662 Aug. 29, 1989 (filed Feb. 3, 1987)
Tsuno et al. (Tsuno) 5,055,359 Oct. 8, 1991 (eff. filing date: Dec. 14, 1989)
Yokoyama et al. (Yokoyama) 5,069,967 Dec. 3, 1991 (eff. filing date: May 6, 1987)
Funkenbusch 5,098,541 Mar. 24, 1992 (eff. filing date: Feb. 1, 1988)
Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) 5,132,173 July 21, 1992 (eff. filing date: Feb. 9, 1990)
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Funkenbusch in view of Hashimoto, Futamoto and Tsuno. Claim 13 stands rejected over those
references and further in view of Yokoyama. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Funkenbusch and Kobliska in view of Futamoto. Claim 15 stands rejected
over the references used to reject claim 14 further in view of Yokoyama. The rejections are
reproduced on pages 3 through 11 of the Answer. We reverse all the rejections for the following
reasons.
OPINION
“A claimed invention is unpatentable as obvious ‘if the differences between the subject matter
sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007