Appeal 2007-1485
Application 10/943,944
Claims 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarvis in combination with Inaba . 6
The Examiner contends that Jarvis teaches a wide film useful as an
agricultural covering. The Examiner recognized that Jarvis did not disclose
the film to be formed from a fluororesin material. The Examiner contends
that Inaba describes film structures comprising fluororesin materials that
have chemical resistant properties. The Examiner contends that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize
fluororesin materials as the wide film structure of Jarvis (Answer 5-6).
Appellants contend that the combination of Jarvis and Inaba does not
disclose or suggest the presently claimed invention (Br. 8-9).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record for this rejection are
as follows: (1) does Jarvis disclose, teach, or suggest a wide film useful as
an agricultural covering?; and (2) has the Examiner presented an explicit
reason for manufacturing the wide film of Jarvis with fluororesin materials?
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 rejection 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 Jarvis teaches a wide film useful as an
agricultural covering having at least two film sheets bonded to one another.
Jarvis discloses the film is useful as barrier material (Paragraph 0060). The
6 For this rejection, Appellants have not presented separate arguments for
claim 14 (See Br. 8-9). We select claim 13 as representative of the claims
on appeal and will limit our discussion to claim 13.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013