Appeal 2007-2152
Application 10/797,982
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to the field of imaging, e.g.,
photography, and the laminated base materials used in imaging elements
(Specification 1:8-10 and 15). Independent Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of forming a roughened sheet comprising extruding a
polymer sheet wherein at least one surface layer comprises polyether
polymeric antistat, extrudable polymer, and compatibilizer stretching said
polymer sheet by a ratio of at least 3:1 in at least one direction such that said
at least one surface layer has a roughness of greater 0.3 Ra.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Greener US 6,207,361 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-11 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Greener.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A reference is anticipatory within the meaning of § 102 if it discloses
each and every claim limitation either expressly or inherently. In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In the present case, the Examiner attempts to establish anticipation of
claims 1-11 and 14-16 by identifying portions of Greener which teach the
individual components of Appellants’ claimed method. The Examiner does
not, however, direct us to a single working embodiment which includes all
of the features recited in independent claim 1. See Atofina v. Great Lakes
Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013