Appeal No. 2005-1595 5
Application No. 09/870,180
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). This test requires us to take into account not only the specific teachings of
the prior art references, but also any inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With the above test in mind, we turn to the examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 33, 34
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chau
and Stamm. We find that Stamm teaches a method of forming a high efficiency
retroreflective article through improving the dimensions of cube corner cavities. See the
abstract and columns 1-4. According to the appellants (Brief, page 3), the retroreflective
article referred to by Stamm is “an optical reflector that utilizes cube corner cavities.” The
examiner finds (Answer, page 5), and the appellants do not dispute (Brief, pages 5-6), that
Stamm’s method for manufacturing this article generally involves providing a base layer
having a structure surface defining improved “cube corner cavities separated on their top
surface on the base layer”, applying a film of a reflective material (mirror coat) to the
cavities and “filling the structured surface with an optically transparent material.” See also
Stamm, column 5, lines 8-15. We note that Stamm does not specify the type of the
optically transparent material employed and its curing method.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007