Appeal No. 2000-1213
Application No. 08/566,006
We also observe that the determination of the sufficiency
(enablement) of any given disclosure requires consideration of not
only the amount of direction and guidance provided in the applied
prior art documents, but also the relative skill of those in the
art, the nature of the invention and the state of the prior art
(information generally available in the art). In re Vaeck, 947
F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Appellant’s
position does not take into account, inter alia, the state of the
prior art regarding “ultrasonic welding techniques.” On this
record, appellant has not demonstrated that without more detail
information, one of ordinary skill in the art would have required
undue experimentation to bond the films of a cellular
retroreflective sheeting with ultrasonic welding.
Having concluded that the applied prior art provides a
disclosure which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to
use ultrasonic welding and would have suggested the claimed
cellular flexible retroreflective sheeting, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
regarding the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
As a rebuttal to the prima facie case established by the
examiner, appellant states (Brief, page 6) that:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007