Appeal No. 1998-1870
Application No. 08/447,063
Chikaishi reference is analogous prior art, notwithstanding
appellants' argument to the contrary. We fully appreciate all of
the points made by appellants in seeking to distinguish the
Chikaishi document from the claimed invention. However, nothing
argued diminishes the clear and explicit teaching by Chikaishi,
in the packaging art, of the laminated film solution to the film
pinhole problem. Since the rejections are clearly predicated5
only upon knowledge in the art at the time of the present
invention, we disagree with appellants' assertion (main brief,
page 10) that the combination of prior art teachings "is only
possible because of hind-sight knowledge" of appellants'
disclosure. Since the evidence before us clearly supports a
conclusion of obviousness, the rejections are sound.
In summary, this panel of the board has sustained each of
the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007