Appeal 2006-2777
Application 10/383,603
of Etzbach “presumably would be more flexible than the flakes when solid” but
provides no evidentiary basis for this presumption (Answer 3).
We also determine that the Examiner has failed to establish why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the flexible mold of De Brocke,
which has wells or cavities that extend only partially through the mold (see Figs. 2
and 3), for the flexible screen of Etzbach which has voids or openings extending
through the net or screen (col. 1, ll. 33-35 and 54-55). The Examiner’s reasoning
that “it would not be that much of a stretch” to make the proposed modification
does not meet the Examiner’s burden (Answer 6). The Examiner has also failed to
establish why one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the flexing method
of flake removal taught by De Brocke since Etzbach specifically teaches several
alternative methods of flake removal which does not include flexing (col. 12, ll.
60-65).
The Examiner has applied Morris for the teaching of using a master mold
with a replicated article molded therefrom as the inverse of the master (Answer 4).
Accordingly, Morris does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007