Appeal 2007-2853
Application 10/255,922
value) of the film such that it would have been obvious for an artisan with
ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such art-
recognized, result-effective parameters. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-937 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Appellants’ arguments regarding the surface roughness of the claimed
film are also unavailing. Ashcraft discloses using skin layers to cover the
irregularities (i.e., surface roughness) present on the surface of the core layer
(i.e., void-containing layer) (Ashcraft, col. 4, ll. 59-63). Ashcraft further
discloses that the character and dimension of the skin layers are responsible
for the lustrous quality of the satin appearance (i.e., pearlescence or FLOP
value) of the structure (Ashcraft, col. 4, ll. 65-68). Thus, Ashcraft
recognizes surface roughness is a result-effective variable for controlling the
lustrous quality of the satin appearance (i.e., pearlescence or FLOP value) of
the film. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for an artisan with
ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for Kent’s
surface roughness in view of Ashcraft’s recognition that surface roughness is
an art-recognized, result-effective parameter. See Woodruff, 919 F.2d at
1578, 16 USPQ2d at 1936-37; Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276, 205 USPQ at 219;
In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at 235.
From the foregoing, we conclude that the Examiner’s combination of
Ashcraft’s various parameters with Kent’s pearlescent film is not based on
impermissible hindsight. Rather, because Ashcraft discloses that the various
claimed and argued parameters are result-effective variables, one of ordinary
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013