Appeal No. 1999-1951 5
Application No. 08/797,062
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner, and agree with the appellant that the rejections of the claims under
§ 103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner
relies upon a combination of at least two references to reject the claimed subject matter
and establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The premise of the rejection is that, “it
would have been obvious to increase the molecular weight of the polyol component.”
See Answer, page 5. We disagree.
The Belisle reference is directed to a retroreflective sheeting construction
comprising a monolayer of reflective transparent spheres embedded in a polymeric
binder. See column 1, lines 10-11. We find that the polymeric layer containing the
reflective spheres is reacted to a substantially insoluble state and comprises urethane
linkages. See column
2, lines 31-36 and column 4, line 35 to column 5, line 5. Various isocyanate
terminated polyols are disclosed. See column 5, lines 11-53. The particularly preferred
polyol is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007