Appeal No. 2006-0501
Application No. 10/131,019
argument in view of the factual findings set forth at pages 4-6
of the Answer and above. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
Section 102 rejection.
With respect to the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of
claim 17, the appellants do not dispute the examiner’s
determination at page 4 of the Answer that:
The claimed thickness is well known in the molding art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
use a carrier having the claimed thickness in Spain et
al in order to produce a durable molded laminate.
We also note that Spain teaches that “[t]he preferred film
thickness of the carrier sheet is about two mils.” See column 8,
lines 55-59. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s Section 103
rejection as well.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
As a final point, we note that the appellants have submitted
our prior decision entered July 22, 2005 on Appeal NO. 2005-1549,
Application NO. 10/193,407, as a supplement to the Appeal Brief
filed February 28, 2005. The subject matter considered in our
prior decision is identical to or substantially identical to the
one before us in this appeal. However, in the prior decision,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007