Appeal 2007-0835
Application 09/950,778
Landeghem roughens the foil of that reference and it would have been
obvious to optimize the roughness level through routine experimentation to
obtain the benefits taught by Van Landeghem (id., citing In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Further according to the
Examiner, it would have been obvious to use a urethane acrylate
composition as a binder for the protective coating of Yamane because as
evidenced by Van Havenbergh, it was a known composition for use in
protective coatings (Answer 5).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Van Havenbergh
for the teaching of a urethane acrylate binder for the protective layer of
Yamane is misplaced because Van Havenbergh is directed to binders for the
phosphor layer, not the protective layer (Br. 9-10). Appellant further
contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Van Landeghem for the teachings
of roughness is misplaced because Van Landeghem is directed to a foil
rather than a screen and does not teach or suggest the claimed roughness
range of between 2 and 10 microns (Br. 10). Appellant also contends that no
criticality is disclosed in the references as to these claimed features (Reply
Br. 1-4).
The Examiner responds that the evidence supports the findings with
regard to both the binder and the roughness (Answer 5-7).
The principle issue on appeal is: Does a preponderance of the
evidence support the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in
the intensifying screen and radiography system manufacturing art would
have found it obvious at the time of the invention to have provided the
protective layer of Yamane’s screen with a urethane acrylate binder and a
surface roughness between 2 and 10 microns?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013