Appeal 2006-3109
Application 10/743,936
satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
employ the method and apparatus of Peterson to draw and stretch film stock
that is painted. Certainly, as evidenced by Susa, it was known in the art to
thermally deform and stretch painted film. Even if we accept Appellants’
argument that the molding method of Susa is non-analogous to the stretching
method of Peterson, which, in fact, we do not, we have no doubt that
utilizing the stretching method and apparatus of Peterson to modify the
dimensions of a painted or non-painted film would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants have apprised us of no reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have considered the method of Peterson to be applicable to only
non-painted films. Undoubtedly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be
concerned that stretching a painted film may be deleterious to the
appearance of the painted surface, but we are convinced that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have needed to resort to only routine experimentation
to determine the maximum amount of stretching that is tolerable before
surface appearance is compromised. It would seem that the maximum,
acceptable degree of stretching would be dependent upon the specific film
material and particular paint composition. For instance, one of ordinary skill
in the art might expect that a latex paint would allow for more stretching
than a non-latex paint. In any event, we find that it would have been a
matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the
maximum amount that a particular painted film can be stretched to produce
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007