Appeal 2007-1262
Application 10/697,532
claim 4. Second, the matching tolerance range disclosed by Hansson in
column 1 relates to traditional prior art techniques over which Hansson’s
digitally controlled technique is an improvement. Indeed, Hansson teaches
that the digital data of his technique yields a surface structure (i.e., texture)
that matches décor segments (i.e., printed patterns) (para. bridging
cols. 9-10). Such a match would correspond to a registry of about 1 mm or
less as required by claim 4.
Additionally, the Appellants make unembellished assertions that the
prior art would not have suggested the particular features of certain
dependent claims (Br. 27-30). We perceive no convincing merit in these
unembellished assertions.
For example, both Hansson and Casto evince that embossment depth
is an art-recognized, result-effective variable, thereby evincing obviousness
for the embossment depth features of claims 5 and 6. In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Multiple
textured surfaces as required by claim 16 would have been suggested by the
multiple texturing or engraving teachings of Casto (sentence bridging pgs. 2-
3; pg. 3, ll. 34-41). The claim 31 feature of an adhesive base coat between
the base coating and support layer is satisfied by Hansson’s first of multiple
topcoat layers (examples 1-4) since this first topcoat layer would necessarily
adhere to the underlying support layer and the overlying topcoat layer(s).
The Appellants’ nonobviousness assertion for the bottom balance layer of
claim 38 is directly contradicted by Appellants’ disclosure that their
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013