Appeal 2007-1262
Application 10/697,532
above-noted reasoning, namely, an artisan would have reasonably expected
that Hansson’s desired product would predictably result from the texture
then print technique of Casto. In this regard, it is appropriate to emphasize
that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art
teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the
teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be implicit from the prior art as a
whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336; cited
with approval in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396.
The Appellants further argue that an obviousness conclusion is
improper because Casto fills in his textured interstices, thereby “creating a
smooth surface, [such that] there is no embossed surface remaining” (Br.
22). The Appellants’ interpretation of the Casto disclosure is factually
erroneous. Casto explicitly teaches forming a non-smooth surface to thereby
reproduce tile effects where the mortar joints are represented by depressed
fillings (Casto 3, ll. 34-41).
The Appellants also argue that Hansson’s technique would not yield
the claim 4 product wherein the printed pattern and textured design is in
register to about 1 mm or less because Hansson discloses a matching
tolerance of up to ± 5 mm at column 1, lines 25-28 (Br. 27). We are
unpersuaded by this argument for a number of reasons. First, a matching
tolerance of ± 5 mm would yield products with tolerances throughout this
range including a product having a 1 mm or less registry as defined by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013