Appeal 2006-3109
Application 10/743,936
We have reviewed Appellants' request but are unconvinced of any
error in our decision. We remain of the opinion 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.
Appellants point to separate arguments for claim 12, as well as other
claims on appeal. However, it is our view that such arguments in the Brief
were essentially the same as those lodged against claim 10, and,
furthermore, these arguments were addressed by the Examiner in the
Answer.
Appellants contend that "stock or film stock which is painted is not
the equivalent of laminated paint film sheet stock" (Request 2, third para.).
However, Appellants point to no definition which distinguishes the claimed
"paint film laminated thereon" and painted film stock. Moreover, we are not
convinced that any difference between the two would undermine the
obviousness of the claimed method for stretching paint film parts in view of
the state of the prior art.
Also, although Appellants argue that Peterson is directed to
monolithic sheet stock, which "is not the equivalent of a film [or] laminated
sheet stock, much less laminated paint film sheet stock" (Request 2, para.
D), we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
considered the method of Peterson for forming wide film parts as applicable
to laminated paint film sheet stock. Appellants have proffered no
convincing argument nor objective evidence that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have considered the method of Peterson as applicable to the
claimed method for forming wide paint film parts.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013