Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215
7, first para.). As discussed above, the high bond areas of McAmish form
areas of reduced thickness in the thermoplastic sheet.
Finally, Appellant contends that "the lamination process and apparatus
disclosed by McAmish is from nonanalogous art, such that a person of skill
in the claimed art would not look to that art to solve a problem treated by the
claimed invention" (Br. 9, last para.). We disagree. In our view, McAmish
is directed to the same field of endeavor of imparting a pattern of reduced
thickness on a thermoplastic sheet and is reasonably pertinent to the same
problem of providing alternative means of utilizing rollers to provide
portions of a thermoplastic sheet with a reduced thickness. In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
James R. Fitzell, Jr.
900 Fifth Third Center
111 Lyon Street, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013