Appeal No. 2000-0701
Application No. 08/816,471
properties of the electrode to polymer contact and subsequent contact resistance, as is
well known in the art.”
Appellants argue (brief, pages 4 and 5) that “[t]he Examiner’s contention that it
would be obvious to vary the roughness from the 1.25 of Example 4 to the at least 1.4
of the claimed invention does not take into account the importance of the combination
of a specific roughness value with a specific reflection density,” and that “[a]ppellants
have identified that a particular layered structure, combined with a particular roughness
and reflection density, produces an improved product, and there is nothing in either
Example 4 or Example 2 or in their combination that would lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to the conclusion that the specified combination of roughness and reflection
density would be preferred . . . .”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. In the absence of appellants’ disclosed
and claimed invention, there is nothing of record that teaches or would have suggested
combining the disparate teachings of the two foils in Examples 2 and 4. Even if we
assume for the sake of argument that it is “well known in the art” to combine the
teachings of the two examples, we are still left to guess how the skilled artisan would
know to select an average roughness value “of at least 1.4.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007