Appeal No. 2006-1850
Application 10/039,103
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded
upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
brief and reply brief collectively argue the common feature of independent claims 45 and
52 and no other claim on appeal is argued before us.
Both the examiner and appellants argue the two Phillips references as one
reference. This is understandable since both Phillips patents are derived from the same
initially filed patent application of July 19, 1993 and appear to have common disclosures.
Therefore, we will treat them in the same manner as the parties before us.
The focus of the arguments between the examiner and appellants is upon two
corresponding clauses in independent claims 45 and 52 respectively. As to claim 45, the
feature “a seal film applied to the cube corner elements to maintain an air interface at the
cube corner elements” is argued in the same manner as the corresponding limitation in
claim 52 of “a seal film applied to the retroreflective sheeting to maintain an air interface
at the cube corner elements.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007