Appeal No. 2005-0214
Application No. 09/742,653
In the instant case, the teaching of non-adhesive material
forms “embedded into” the top surface of the release liner is
found in Calhoun ‘790. Hence, appellant’s argument that
Rusincovitch does not teach this aspect of the invention does not
address the combined teachings of the references, and hence, is
unpersuasive. Id.
While we appreciate that appellant wishes us to interpret
Rusincovitch as teaching to position the non-adhesive material
forms on the top surface of the release layer, rather than
embedded into the top surface of the release layer, because
Rusincovitch is an improvement patent over Calhoun ‘790, we do
not agree with such logic. Rusincovitch teaches that one of the
disadvantages of the prior art is that the spacer means shows
through the decorative face of the wall covering. See column 1,
lines 65-68 of Rusncovitch. The examiner therefore correctly
relies upon this teaching as motivation to substitute the
material of the particles of Calhoun ‘790 with the polymeric ink
material of Rusincovitch, while keeping the positioning of the
non-adhesive material forms as taught by Calhoun. We also note
that one of the disclosed materials for the particles of Calhoun
‘790 can be polymeric. See column 3, lines 24-39 of Calhoun
‘790.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 31-
33, 35-40, 42, 43, 46-52, 55 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Rusincovitch.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007