Appeal 2006-2814
Application 10/331,582
said second skin layer has a surface roughness Ra of from
0.3 to 1.3 microns, and wherein said metallized surface has a
less bright mirrored appearance than a comparative metallized
thermoplastic label of identical structure. Claim 4.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the Ra values at paragraph [0023] represent a
continuum. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have understood
that a label having a second skin layer with an Ra value of 0.8 to 1.0 microns
would be similar in appearance to a label having a second skin layer with an
Ra value of slightly less than 0.8 microns or slightly greater than 1.0
microns. Given the specification disclosure that the metallized surface of a
label has a less bright mirrored appearance when the second skin layer,
before metallization, has an Ra value of from 0.3 to 0.8 microns and from 1.0
to 1.3 microns, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that an Ra value between these two ranges, i.e., 0.8 to 1.0
microns, would likewise yield a metallized surface having “a less bright
mirrored appearance than a comparative metallized thermoplastic label of
identical structure.”
Accordingly, we find that claims 4 and 5 meet the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. The rejection is reversed.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 11-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marks in view of Marotta
The Examiner relies on Marks for a teaching of the invention as
claimed in claim 1 with the exception of a second cavitating agent having a
median particle size of 1.5 microns or less. Answer 4. The Examiner relies
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013