Appeal No. 2002-0229 6
Application No. 08/619,976
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject
matter.
As to the balance of the references, Mizumo is directed to an entirely different
composition utilizing a major amount of the polymeric component described supra. In
contrast to Nishii, the other references to Yueng and Bradfield, applied only with respect to
claims 13 through 16 are each directed to multilayer laser markable tape electric cables
respectively. The examiner relies upon Yueng for its disclosure to utilize raw or unsintered
PTFE as an additional polymer in the manufacture of the laminate of Nishii. See Answer,
page 5. Bradfield in contrast is relied upon, “to make the articles of Nishii in the form of a
cable.” Id. The references are relied upon to neither suggest nor teach label marking of
the article of the laminated article of Nishii and we decline to enter any such findings.
Accordingly, based upon the above findings and analysis, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima face case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject matter. It
follows that the rejection of record is not sustainable.
Because we reverse on this basis, we need not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the
showing of unexpected results. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276,
1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 12, 17, and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nishii in view of Mizumo is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007