Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Appellants argue the rejected claims for each of the stated rejections
as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on
which we decide this appeal as to the Examiner’s first and third stated
rejections, and we select claim 2 as the representative claim for the
Examiner’s second stated rejection.
§ 103(a) Rejection Over Curro, Ahr, Shimalla, and Turi
The Examiner has taken the position that Curro discloses a forming
structure corresponding to the representative claim 1 structure including
rounded aberrations (protrusions) extending from a first surface of the
forming structure with the exception of an explicit description of an aspect
ratio defining a columnar shape for the raised protrusions as here claimed
(Answer 4 and 5; Curro, figs. 10 and 11; col. 15, l. 1 – col. 16, l. 68;
Abstract). The forming structure with raised aberrations can be used to form
films having a surface roughness corresponding to an aberration – bearing
surface of the forming structure on a film surface (Curro, col. 16, ll. 32-52).
The Examiner has found that Ahr discloses that tactile impressions or
projections on a web surface are desirable in a variety of shapes, including
columnar hair-like shapes wherein the projections have relatively high
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013