Appeal No. 1999-0349
Application 08/621,379
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicants to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
The appellants assert (brief, pages 11 and 12) that
None of the cited references provides the
teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine their
disparate disclosures to practice the claimed
combination of an antireflection film, a
polarization-direction changing film, an adhesive
disposed between the polarization-direction changing
film and a second glass plate, and a light-
transmittable reflection film disposed between a
polarization-direction changing film and a first
glass plate, as recited in independent Claims 2, 7
and 9 . . . .
The examiner takes the position (answer, page 3) that
Hashimoto et al teaches all of the features of
the claimed invention except for the use of an
adhesive to adhere the polarizing film to the
outside glass, the antireflection film on the inside
surface of the first glass plate and the light-
transmittable reflection film between the
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007