Appeal 2007-2415
Application 11/200,690
invention is nothing more than the predictable result of a combination of
familiar elements according to known methods). Contrariwise, we find that
Appellants’ position lacks factual support. For example, Appellants have
not identified any teaching in Birkholz requiring application of water “over”
the label. Birkholz teaches that the layer of moisture dissipative material
may be dissipated by immersing the label and support surface in water.
(Finding of Fact 4). Thus, water could enter the dissipative material along
an edge of the label, i.e., an area of the label which is not covered by the
lenticular member.
Appellants further contend that, even if the references were combined,
there is no teaching or suggestion of orienting the lenticules in the manner
claimed. (Br. 9). We do not find this argument persuasive, since
Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s finding that the claimed
orientation is suggested by Birkholz Figure 3 and Sekiguchi Figures 108 and
109. (Answer 5-6).
The rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Birkholz in view of Sekiguchi is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013