Appeal 2007-1004
Application 09/842,248
backing sheet, is unavailing because the resin layer (B) of representative
claim 1 is not required to be used in a laminate backing sheet layer, but just
in a layer (B), a layer which encompasses the substrate layer of Spain. In
this regard, the Examiner’s position (Br. 5) that it would have been obvious
to use the resin composition of Saeki in the substrate layer of Spain is not
even addressed, much less called into question by this line of argument.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s combination of Spain
and Saeki would result in polyhydroxy polyolefin in the resin composition
(Br. 11-12), which ingredient is allegedly not encompassed by representative
claim 1. However, Saeki clearly teaches that the polyhydroxy polyolefin
component (E) thereof is an optional ingredient. Thus, it is manifest that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the optional resin
ingredient (E) can be omitted with the corresponding function thereof.
Also, Appellants’ summarily presented “obvious to try” and
“impermissible hindsight” contentions are off the mark and clearly without
merit in establishing reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection for reasons
set forth above and in the Answer.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spain in view of Saeki is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013