Appeal No. 1998-2317
Application No. 08/327,601
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has failed to present a prima facie case of anticipation or
obviousness in view of Stillman. We note that Murray and Ossian
were applied by the examiner for their disclosure of oriented
polyester films as the outer ply of a laminate and thus do not
remedy the deficiencies discussed above with respect to
Stillman. Even assuming arguendo that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness, based on the
totality of the record, including appellants’ arguments and
evidence, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs
most heavily in favor of non-obviousness. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Stillman is reversed. The rejection of claims 4 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stillman is also reversed. The
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stillman in view
of either Murray or Ossian is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007