Appeal 2007-0835
Application 09/950,778
(Van Landeghem, col. 1, ll. 36-58; col. 3, ll. 28-40). Roughening can be
accomplished by embedding particles or by embossing the surface (Van
Landeghem, col. 3, ll. 17-20). As shown in Figure 4, the foil 9 includes a
light-active layer 13 and particles 12, the particles 12 holding the film 11 at a
distance from the foil 9 (Van Landeghem, Fig. 4; col. 3, ll. 21-35).3 The
“foil” is in the same contacting position with the X-ray film as the “screen”
of Yamane (Figs. 1 and 2 showing foil 9, Fig. 4 showing the loading of the
X-ray film 11).
C. Analysis
With regard to the issue of whether one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to select a urethane acrylate for the protective
layer binder in the screen of Yamane, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the determination of the Examiner. As found by the Examiner, and
contrary to the argument by Appellant, Yamane describes the inclusion of a
binder in the protective layer to provide durability (Yamane, col. 4, ll. 45-
49). Van Havenbergh describes compositions containing urethane acrylates
that provide durability to a protective layer (Van Havenbergh, col. 5, ll. 45-
49 and 65-67). This is not disputed by Appellant (Br. 9-10). The use of the
known urethane acrylate composition for its established use in a protective
coating is no more than the predictable use of a prior art element according
to its established function and, therefore there is an adequate suggestion in
the art to support the rejection. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)(“The combination of
3 Van Landeghem contains an obvious typographical error at column 3, line
27. As shown, for instance, at column 3, line 7, reinforcing foil is properly
labeled “9” not “11.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013