Appeal No. 2003-1983
Application No. 09/704,077
Id. In this regard, the examiner notes that Oishi discloses a
photo curable coating that could be applied to the labeled
cathode ray tubes of Yokoyama. Id. We find that the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is improper for at least the following
reasons.
First, we note that the examiner erred in finding that
Yokoyama discloses a step wherein the basecoat is charred to form
“fragile” product identification indicia thereon as required by
claim 9 and the remaining claims on appeal which depend
therefrom. The examiner concedes that claim 9 “requires use of a
laser beam to ‘char’, i.e. burn, a cured or partially cured
blackenable basecoat on a substrate, to form a ‘fragile’
indicia.” Examiner’s Answer, page 3. However, the examiner then
incorrectly concludes that any marking produced by laser charing
or burning is necessarily “fragile.” Id.
As explained by appellants, when a laser is used to char or
carbonize a basecoat in accordance with the method of the
invention, “the markings are easy to smudge and the label,
thereby, is quite fragile.” Appeal Brief, page 12 (quoting
Specification, page 3). In contrast, Yokoyama uses a laser to
create “fine surface irregularities appearing on the surface
region of the solid paint layer.” Yokoyama, column 7, lines 7-8.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007