Appeal No. 2002-0189
Application No. 08/526,914
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, none of these rejections can
be sustained.
As correctly indicated by the appellants in their brief, the
ordinary and accepted dictionary definition of the term
“congruent” reveals that there is no merit in the examiner’s
position that the claim 1 phrase “fully overlapping and congruent
with each other” is “vague and confusing” (answer, page 5). It
follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of all appealed claims.
Concerning the § 102 rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Arnold, the examiner has provided the file record
of this application with one and only one specific explanation of
his position that Arnold anticipates claim 1. This one and only
explanation appears on page 6 of the answer and reads as follows:
As shown in said figure -2 [of Arnold], the backing
sheet with a decorative side is shown by elements 22
and 24 together, the cover sheet is tagged as clear
cover polyester film 28 which is adhesively laminated
to the backing sheet, and a release lines 32 is adhered
to the cover film. The structure of figure -2 shows a
fully overlapping and congruent laminate. (emphasis
original)
The above quoted explanation clearly fails to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation. This is in part because a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007