Appeal No. 2004-1053
Application No. 09/772,409
that the prior art tabs are “typically made from thin sheets of
flexible plastic material” (col. 1, ll. 17-18) and gives examples
of “thin flexible sheets” (col. 4, l. 9). Even assuming arguendo
that Hatton discloses a strip material thickness of “about 23 mil,”
this thickness is sufficiently similar to the upper claimed range
of strip material thickness (“about 20 mil”) that one of ordinary
skill in this art would have expected similar results. See
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773,
779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Third, we note that even for thicknesses
less than “about 20 mil” (see claims 4, 8, 10 and 11), the
optimization of the thickness necessary to support the banner or
sign, in conjunction with the strength of the plastic, would have
been well within the ordinary skill in this art as a “result-
effective variable.” See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, Hatton teaches
that any plastic material can be used as a strip material “provided
it has sufficient flexibility to be folded over ... and has
sufficient tensile strength to support the desired banner....”
Col. 4, ll. 4-8. Hatton also teaches that it is desirable to use
stronger plastic material in a tab (col. 1, ll. 45-51). Therefore
we agree with the examiner that the selection of the strip material
would also be well within the ordinary skill in this art, depending
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007