Appeal No. 2005-1369
Application 10/307,464
expressly teach such here-claimed characteristics as the smooth-
ness values defined by appealed independent claim 1. Indeed, the
examiner’s unpatentability position is based upon the proposition
that patentee’s laminated board structure would necessarily and
inherently possess such characteristics.
For example, the examiner logically argues that the
claim 1 smoothness values are indistinguishable from those of
Cavagna because the Sheffield units of patentee’s substrate are
within the here-claimed range (see lines 12-14 in column 2) and,
since an even smoother surface would be created when the polymer
film is placed on this substrate, the Sheffield units of
Cavagna’s ultimate laminated board structure by necessity also
would fall within the here-claimed range.
In this latter regard, the appellants seem to believe
that Cavagna does not teach that his ultimate product, namely, a
polymer coated paperboard, has a smoother surface than the paper-
board substrate. Such a belief is contrary to patentee’s
explicit disclosure on lines 51-60 of column 3 wherein Cavagna
describes his invention as a coated paperboard product and states
that the purpose of his invention “is to upgrade at least one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007