Appeal 2007-0835
Application 09/950,778
D. Conclusion
We conclude that the Examiner has established by a preponderance of
the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the intensifying screen 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. Appellant has not convinced
us of a reversible error by the Examiner nor overcome the Examiner’s
reasonable conclusion of obviousness by a showing of secondary
considerations.
III. OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider the
relevance of EP-A 0 510 754 to the issue of patentability. This document,
cited in the Specification at page 3, line 36, describes a screen with an
embossed protective coating with a roughness optimized to prevent sticking,
friction, and electrostatic attraction (EP '754, p. 3, ll. 35-49) and suggests
that a roughness of 3 microns for a protective coating 8 microns thick
provides favorable image sharpness (EP '754, p. 4, ll. 13-14) and includes
examples of screens with a roughness range of 1-8 microns (EP '754, p. 8, ll.
48-49; fig. 1). This document also suggests the use of urethane acrylates in
the radiation curable composition for forming the protective coating (EP
'754, p. 5, ll. 9-46; p. 8, ll. 24-30).
IV. DECISION
With regard to the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and
4-12 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we AFFIRM.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013