Appeal No. 2006-1872
Application No. 09/769,376
Kon relied upon, i.e., column 18, lines 35-43, merely describes a surface roughness range for the
air side of a polycarbonate substrate. The polycarbonate substrate is not a multilayer structure
with a layer of cured epoxy resin as a base layer as required by the claim. Nor is the surface
roughness, Ra, of 0.8 nm or lower present on “at least one side” of the required multilayer
structure. While it is the air side of the polycarbonate sheet which has the surface roughness
value of 1 nm or less, that “air side” is covered by other layers in later coating operations.
Therefore, the “air side” is not a “side” of the multilayer structure as claimed.
We find that the Examiner has failed to establish anticipation by Kon with respect to the
subject matter of claims 1 and 3-5.
Obviousness over Kon in view of Beeson
With respect to the rejection of claim 6 over Kon in view of Beeson, this rejection fails
for the same reasons as the rejection for anticipation by Kon. No new reasoning with respect to
Kon is advanced and Beeson does not cure the defects discussed above with respect to the
anticipation rejection over Kon.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claim 6.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 based upon obviousness-type
double patenting over claim 1 of Sugawa. We further sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon anticipation by Sugawa. We do not sustain the rejection of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007