Appeal No. 2004-2278 Page 3
Application No. 09/302,471
(3) subjecting the dried coating layer to a baking treatment at a temperature of 350BC or
higher.
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:1
Tomikawa et al. (Tomikawa) JP 6-83063 Mar. 25, 1994
Takei et al. (Takei) JP 9-208237 Aug. 12, 1997
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 7 and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Takei.
2. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takei
as applied in the first rejection and further in view of Tomikawa.
We reverse. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Claims 7 and 10-15 have been rejected as anticipated by Takei. In establishing
anticipation, the burden is on the Examiner to show that Takei discloses, either expressly or
inherently, something embodying every limitation of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). What we initially note about the Examiner’s
1We rely upon and cite to the English language translations of record for each of the references relied upon
by the Examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007