Appeal No. 2003-0358
Application 08/982,958
ordinary skill in this art would attribute the same usage to the same terms in the disclosure of
Noel at col. 9, line 67, to col. 10, line 35, describing layered films, including those layered films
described as delaminatable.
Thus, on this record, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in this art would not have
found in Noel the reasonable suggestion to modify the multi-film laminates thereof to obtain the
basic laminate structure required by appealed claims 1 and 32, and therefore, even assuming
arguendo that the multi-film laminate structures taught by Noel were modified to include a
printed image or film trapped between the film layers as suggested by the secondary references,
the result would not be the claimed laminates encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 32. See
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Therefore, we must conclude that the only direction to appellant’s claimed invention
as a whole on the record before us is supplied by appellant’s own specification.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007