Ex Parte Williams et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-1389                                                                              
                Application 10/790,898                                                                        
                                            I.  BACKGROUND                                                    
                      The invention relates to a composite article including a layer of                       
                radiation cured polymer on a metal foil backing.  The exposed surface of the                  
                radiation cured layer has a three-dimensional microstructure.  The composite                  
                article has large scale dimensional stability.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the                
                subject matter on appeal:                                                                     
                             1.  A composite article having large scale predictable                           
                             dimensional stability comprising:                                                
                                   a. a metal foil backing having a back surface and an                       
                             opposite front surface; and                                                      
                                   b. a layer of a radiation cured polymer having an exposed                  
                             front surface bearing a three-dimensional microstructure of                      
                             precisely shaped and located functional discontinuities                          
                             including distal surface portions and adjacent depressed surface                 
                             portions and an opposite surface in adherent contact with the                    
                             front surface of said backing.                                                   
                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show                        
                unpatentability:                                                                              
                Lu     US 5,468,540   Nov. 21, 1995                                                           
                      The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:                             
                   1. Claims 1-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                          
                      anticipated by Lu; and                                                                  
                   2. Claims 12 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                            
                      unpatentable over Lu.                                                                   
                      In reviewing the rejections, we consider the dispositive issues arising                 
                from the contentions in the Brief filed August 31, 2006, the Answer filed                     
                October 5, 2006, and the Reply Brief filed December 5, 2006.                                  


                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013