Appeal No. 2004-2330 Page 4
Application No. 09/986,977
the ground coating. In this manner, the ground coating
yields iridescent patterns, and the metal film layer yields a
metallic mirrored surface, improving the appearance of the
design [specification, page 1 and 2].
The examiner appears to concede on pages 3 and 5 of the answer that neither of
the primary references, Kazuya and Mamoru, relied upon by the examiner in rejecting
the claims teaches or suggests a ground film-layer formed by a paint coat and a metal
film layer providing a mirroring effect and being formed semi-transparently2 as a layer
on the ground film-layer side. The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is grounded
on the position that Manabe teaches such a ground film layer/metal film means coating
and would have suggested the provision of such on the reel body of Kazuya and of
Mamoru. As more fully explained below, we agree with appellant that Manabe would
not have suggested a semi-transparent coating of a metal film means on a ground film-
layer.
Manabe discloses flexible lustrously metallized resinous molded articles
comprised of thermoplastic resinous moldings as a substrate overlaid with a base coat,
a metal film and a protective top coat, in that order, as well as a process for the
manufacture of such articles (column 1, lines 11-19). A flexible polyurethane paint is
used as the base coat; a metal such as copper, silver, nickel, chromium or alloys such
as stainless steel and nickel-chromium are suitable for use as the metal film; and a
2 We presume that the examiner’ reference to a “transparently” formed layer was an inadvertent
error, in light of the fact that the claims call for a “semitransparently” formed layer and in light of the
examiner’s discussion of the term “semi-transparent” on pages 6 and 7 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007