Appeal 2007-1004
Application 09/842,248
laminated to the acrylate layers of Spain (See the Brief in its entirety and
Spain at col. 16, l. 55 – col. 18, l. 19).
Rather, Appellants maintain that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Spain and Saeki is in error as the modification proposed
would not have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention. Moreover, Appellants maintain that even if one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the respective teachings of Spain and
Saeki, the resultant combination would have, at best, resulted in the
formation of a product that differs from the laminated film of representative
claim 1.
Thus, the question before us is: Whether Appellants have
demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s proposed obviousness
rejection by asserting a lack of suggestion or motivation to combine Spain
and Saeki and/or by arguing that the resultant product obtained by one of
ordinary skill in the art would not render the claimed subject matter obvious
even if Spain and Saeki were combined?
We answer these questions in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection for essentially the reasons set forth in the Answer and
below.
As for Appellants’ argued lack of suggestion/motivation for the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Spain and Saeki, we observe that Spain
teaches that the backing sheet and substrate can be made from compatible
synthetic resinous materials that would allow for the injection molding of the
substrate and thermoforming of the backing sheet for forming a shaped
product (col. 16, l. 62 – col. 17, l. 7). Spain teaches that thermoplastic
polyolefins can be used (col. 17, l. 23-28, col. 20, ll. 49-55, col. 33, l 1 - col.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013