Ex Parte Ensign et al - Page 6




             Appeal No. 2006-0059                                                              Page 6                 
             Application No. 10/139,397                                                                               


                                                      OPINION                                                         
                      Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and                   
               the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the                          
               Answer (mailed July 12, 2005) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the                           
               rejections, and to the Brief (filed February 09, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed August               
               16, 2005) for the Appellants’ arguments there against.                                                 
                      We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,                     
               including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in                         
               support of their respective positions.  This review has led us to conclude that the                    
               Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are not well founded.  We will direct                   
               our comments to claims 28 and 77, the independent claims on appeal.                                    
                      Regarding the independent claims the Examiner asserts:                                          
                             As to Claims 28 and 77, Bradshaw discloses removing the mask                             
                      substrate manually (column 6, lines 23-25), but does not disclose a                             
                      take-up roll. The problems associated with handling the mask layer, i.e.,                       
                      the user's hands becoming sticky as a result of touching the excess                             
                      adhesive on the mask layer and having that adhesive interfere with the                          
                      subsequent application of the selected substrate, would have been                               
                      readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the                         
                      invention and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been                             
                      motivated to search [for] a way to prevent or solve the problems                                
                      associated with manually removing the mask layer. It is well known and                          
                      conventional in the material handling apparatus art, as disclosed by                            
                      Roou (Figure 1, matrix take-up reel 34; column 3, lines 39-41) and Stahl                        
                      (Figure 1, waste film wind roll 30; column 2, lines 48-49), to provide a                        
                      take-up reel to remove an unwanted layer of waste material. It would                            
                      have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the                        
                      invention to modify the apparatus of Bradshaw to include a conventional                         







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007