Appeal No. 2005-1595 7
Application No. 09/870,180
Given the similarities of the methods and resulting articles described in Chau and
Stamm and the advantages of using Chau’s optically transmissive material and Stamm’s
surface topography (specifically cube corner cavities), we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the advantageous features
taught by both Stamm and Chau to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 31.
Notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments to the contrary, we determine that from the
above teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
of successfully obtaining an improved optical reflector, i.e., a retroreflective article, by
using Chau’s UV curable “transmissive” index matching fluid as an optically transparent
material for Stamm’s resin body having an improved topography (cube cornered cavities)
coated with a reflective (mirror) material.
The appellants argue that “the combination of Chau with Stamm would negatively
impact the performance of Chau and is, therefore, contrary to the teachings of Chau.” See
the Brief, page 5. We do not agree. As indicated supra, one of ordinary skill in the art
interested in improving reflective articles in general, including the reflective articles taught
by Stamm, would have been led to employ the advantageous features taught by both
Chau and Stamm. This is especially true in this situation since both Stamm and Chau are
directed to similar reflective article making methods of making.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007