Appeal 2006-3109
Application 10/743,936
application of paint film to form the stock is carried out by a gravure
process” (id.). The Specification also relates that “hazards associated with
spray or electrostatic painting of such wide parts can be avoided, and
manufacturing costs of such wide parts can be reduced” (Specification,
sentence bridging pages 2 and 3).
Appealed claims 10, 11, and 20-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Susa. Claim 12
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
stated combination of references further in view of Ghosh.
Appellants have not set forth arguments that are reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand
or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
There is no dispute that Peterson, like Appellants, discloses a method
for forming wide film parts using an apparatus having a frame and at least
two film stock grasping members attached to the frame, which grasping
members can deform the film stock by moving apart from each other. As
recognized by the Examiner, Peterson is silent with respect to whether the
drawn and stretched film stock of Peterson is painted. However, we are
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007