Appeal 2007-1932
Application 11/066,550
transfer process. The substrate is flexible and can be contacted
with a pressing member.
(Answer at 3.)
22. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Okazaki by using organic conductor materials because one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
23. In response to Zschischang's arguments that Okazaki does not teach
the specific hydrophilic and hydrophobic characters of the interfaces
required in claim 1 (Br. at 10, last paragraph, and at 12, first full paragraph),
the Examiner "agrees in part," but argues that "the advantages of 'pretreating
or having' areas to form different absorption characteristics and having the
printing medium/ink to possess the same adsorbtivity of the substrate to
which the ink pattern is desired to be applied are commonplace in the art of
printing patterns," noting that Choy and Teng have been cited in support of
this position. (Answer at 4.)
C. Discussion
The issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has made out a prima
facie case for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Obviousness is a
conclusion of law based on underlying findings of fact. In re Gartside, 203
F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2000). If the underlying
findings of fact are erroneous, the legal conclusion cannot stand. “[T]he
examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The concept
of prima facie obviousness is a procedural mechanism, which requires the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013