Appeal 2007-2415
Application 11/200,690
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner found that Birkholz discloses the invention as claimed
with the exception of a lenticular assembly. (Answer 3). The Examiner
notes that Birkholz teaches that suitable label stock includes stamp grade
paper. (Answer 4). The Examiner further found that Sekiguchi discloses the
use of a lenticular lens on an image printed on an underlying web, such as a
postage stamp. (Answer 3). The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
have provided Birkholz’s labels with a lenticular viewing member as taught
by Sekiguchi to facilitate viewing of the images on Birkholz’s labels.
(Answer 4).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s proposed motivation for combining
the applied prior art, arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to modify Birkholz to include the lenticular member of
Sekiguchi because such modification would destroy the intended function of
Birkholz. (Br. 8). In particular, Appellants maintain that Sekiguchi’s
“plastic or glass lenticular member would encapsulate the top surface of the
stamp, substantially impair contact of the dissipative layer 20 with water
applied over the stamp, and thereby defeat the Birkholz purpose/function of
making the stamp easily removed or washed-off.” (Br. 8).
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find that the facts and reasons
set forth by the Examiner provide a reasonable basis to conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
references in the manner claimed. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (A prima facie case of
obviousness is established where the Examiner demonstrates that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013