Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 7
Application No. 10/412,840
material. As noted above, appellants have not countered the2
examiner’s factual assertion on this point with any persuasive
evidence establishing that the Mylar substrate of Erickson
describes a high (non-low) moisture content substrate. In this
latter regard, appellants are in a better position to test Mylar
samples for moisture content than the examiner.
Furthermore, appellants’ reliance on Examples 5-10 of their
specification at page 6 of the brief is misplaced in asserting
that those examples establish that the examiner is in error as to
the determination of the use of a low moisture content Mylar
support in Erickson. In this regard, pre-conditioned release
paper was employed as the substrate in those examples, not Mylar.
From our vantage point, appellants’ opposition to the
examiner’s well-reasoned factual findings regarding the
correspondence of the moisture content of the Mylar substrates of
Erickson with the representative claim 1 requirements is lacking
in substance and does not serve to establish any reversible error
in the examiner’s anticipation rejection.
2In the event of further prosecution of this subject matter
before the examiner, the examiner should determine whether or not
the use of that relative claim term, “low” results in a violation
of the definiteness requirement of the second paragraph of § 112.
Also, see footnote 1 above for the expected intrinsic moisture
absorption characteristics of Mylar.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007