Appeal 2007-2853
Application 10/255,922
skill would have been motivated to optimize the various parameters to
achieve the desired degree of pearlescence (i.e., FLOP value). Id.
Furthermore, we add that “if a technique has been used to improve
one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
In the present case, Ashcraft discloses that it is known in the art to
control the void size (i.e., aspect ratio, length and number of voids) and the
surface roughness of the product to achieve a product having satin-like (i.e.,
pearlescent or a high FLOP value) appearance (Ashcraft, col. 3, ll. 1-4; col.
4, ll. 57-68). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of one of
ordinary skill in the art and thus obvious to apply Ashcraft’s technique of
controlling the void size (i.e., aspect ratio, length, and number of voids) and
the surface roughness to Kent’s pearlescent or glossy paper-like sheet to
achieve the desired FLOP values (i.e., pearlescence). See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Appellants have chosen to claim their nacreous film in terms of a
measure of the nacreous nature of the film (i.e., the FLOP value). Merely
choosing to describe their invention in this manner does not render
patentable the claimed nacreous film which, for the reasons given above,
would have been obvious over Kent in view of Ashcraft. See In re Skoner,
517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-15, 20, 21, and 39 over Kent in view of Ashcraft.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013