Appeal 2007-1485
Application 10/943,944
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record for these rejections in
this appeal are as follows: (1) Do Higuchi and Yamanaka each disclose,
teach, or suggest a wide fluororesin film useful as an agricultural covering?;
and (2) Has the Examiner presented an explicit reason for manufacturing a
wide fluororesin film having a width of from 1-150 m?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM the rejections as presented in this appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below
The Examiner found that both Higuchi and Yamanaka teach a wide
fluororesin film useful as an agricultural covering having at least two
fluororesin film sheets bonded to one another. The Examiner recognized
that neither Higuchi nor Yamanaka disclosed the described fluororesin film
had a width of from 1-150 m as required by the claimed invention. The
Examiner concluded that forming a fluororesin film with a width of from 1-
150 m would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
(Answer 4-5).
Appellants have not contested that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to form a fluororesin film having a width
of from 1-150 m as required by the claimed invention. Rather, Appellants
argue that the layers of the films of Higuchi and Yamanaka are coextensive
with each other rather than overlapping at the edges.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because the subject matter
of claim 13 does not preclude the layers from being formed coextensive with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013