Appeal 2006-2553
Application 10/685,587
CITATION OF REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Sidders US 4,183,975 Jan. 15, 1980
Parker US 4,403,004 Sep. 6, 1983
Vander Velden US 5,494,745 Feb. 27, 1996
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combined teachings of Parker and Vander Velden. Claim 4 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Parker,
Vander Velden, and Sidders (Answer 3-6).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer mailed April 30, 2006 for the Examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections and to the Briefs filed November 1, 2005 and
January 12, 2006 for Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant's invention relates to a sparkling laminate film. The
laminate film comprises a substrate containing a metal vapor deposition
layer formed on the front surface thereof, a transparent surface layer formed
on the front surface of the metal vapor deposition layer and a backing
material bonded to the back surface of the substrate through the use of an
adhesive layer. Appellant asserts the claimed invention is useful for
automotive moldings (Specification 1). Representative claim 1, as presented
in the Brief, appears below:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007