Appeal No. 2004-2330 Page 3
Application No. 09/986,977
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 17 and 20) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
In our view, a dispositive issue in this appeal is the limitation in claim 15, the only
independent claim before us, “said metal film means being formed semitransparently
on an obverse-layer side of said ground film-layer” (emphasis ours). Appellant’s
specification explains the importance of this limitation as follows:
In this paint-coated component, a ground film-layer is
formed from paint on a component body made of a synthetic
resin or a magnesium alloy. On the upper layer, a
semitransparent metal film layer is formed by a metal-vapor
deposition, by adjusting a metal having a semitransparent
mirroring effect with a half-transparency. Herein, to “adjust
the metal with a half-transparency” means to vary the
proportion of the ground film-layer that is masked, by
adjusting the thickness of the metal film layer. In this case,
adjusting the proportion as one of 50%, 25%, 15% and 5% –
i.e., making the ground film-layer masking rate to be one of
the aforementioned proportions – is preferable, since the
light can pass through the metal film layer, and the ground
film-layer can be visually recognized. Herein, in a certain
position, the light is reflected on the ground coating, showing
the tone of the paint, while in another position the light is
reflected on the metal film layer due to the half-mirroring
effect, showing a metallic mirrored surface with the hue of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007