Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215
Also, we fail to perceive any structural distinction between an
apparatus within the scope of the appealed claims and the apparatus fairly
described by McAmish within the meaning of § 102. It is well settled that
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
We find no merit in Appellant's argument that Friesner teaches away
from utilizing a strip material on the rollers by disclosing a preference for
chrome plating to prevent sticking of the thermoplastic material (Br. 8, first
para.). We are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using chrome
plating in accordance with Friesner or a Teflon strip material disclosed by
McAmish.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "McAmish
teaches the addition of a strip material to rollers, but only in connection with
lamination (e.g., the compressive joining of two different layers) – and then
only with the lamination of a fabric and a film" (Br. 8, second para.). We
find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that
McAmish's alternative means for impressing a pattern on a thermoplastic
sheet during bonding to another layer would also reasonably translate to
impressing a pattern on only a thermoplastic sheet. Appellant has apprised
us of no convincing rationale to the contrary.
We also do not subscribe to Appellant's position that "McAmish
suggests nothing about an extrusion process - let alone a process for
displacing material to reduce the thickness of a thermoplastic sheet" (id.).
As acknowledged by Appellant "[t]he film layer [of McAmish] is made from
extruded thermoplastic" that is "formed in extruder 22 into a sheet …" (Br.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013