Appeal No. 2005-2102
Application No. 10/077,346
Cir. 2001)(“in the parlance of patent law, the transition
‘comprising’ creates a presumption that the recited elements are
only a part of the device, that the claim does not exclude
additional, unrecited elements.”).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer and
the Office action dated Nov. 4, 2003, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claim 21, and claims 22, 25 and 26 which stand or fall
with claim 21, under section 102(b) over Kamiya.
C. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The examiner applies Kamiya as discussed above, further citing
Okada against claims 23 and 24 for its teaching that screen
printing methods are applicable to monochromatic and polychromatic
printing (Answer, page 5). With regard to the rejection of claim
27, the examiner applies Kamiya as discussed above and further
cites Sada for its teaching of adding another clear coat to the top
of a laminate to improve the brilliancy of the structure (id.).
Appellant argues that neither Okada nor Sada have anything to
do with the structure claimed (Brief, pages 9-11). However, we
agree with the examiner that Kamiya discloses screen printing to
produce the coloring layer 9 (col. 3, ll. 58-66), while Okada
teaches the use of screen printing for monochromatic or
polychromatic printings, thus rendering the use of either of these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007