Appeal No. 1998-0542 Page 5
Application No. 08/479,843
requirement for the presentation of a sustainable § 103
rejection.
The rejection, as stated, does not (1) comprehensively
and fairly describe the teachings of each of the applied
references as they may pertain to the subject matter at issue
on a claim by claim basis; (2) set forth the differences
between the claimed subject matter and what is taught by each
of the applied references; and (3) fully explain why the
teachings of either applied reference alone or in combination
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed
subject matter not withstanding those differences.
In particular, we note that the examiner’s reliance on an
example from Table 3 of Kobayashi in the statement of
rejection to ostensibly establish that Kobayashi teaches a
film corresponding to appellants’ film is misplaced. Unlike
appellants’ single layer film, that example, like the other
examples for which film properties are displayed in Table 3,
represents a multi-layer film that includes 19 films and
intermediate layers as set forth at the bottom of column 7 of
Kobayashi.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007