Appeal 2007-3374
Application 10/448,758
an inner layer completely covered by an outer layer (col. 4, ll. 20-43). We
find that Mawson teaches employing chemically different polymers and/or
delustrants, such as silica, to first and second layers exposed to the outer
environment to provide differential gloss (id.). For those embodiments
involving in a first inner layer completely covered by a second outer layer,
Mawson clearly states at col. 3, ll. 2-7:
[A]s explained in more detail below when a profiled effect only
is desired, without differences in gloss, the first [inner] layer
may be discontinuous and the second [outer] layer may
completely overlie the first layer, so that the differences in
profile arise at least in part from the deposits of the first layer.
Nowhere does Mawson teach adding a delustrant (corresponding to the
claimed flattening agent) to the unexposed inner layer.
Accordingly, we are constrained to agree with the Appellants that
Mawson does not expressly or inherently teach employing a delustrant
(corresponding to the claimed flatting agent) in an inner discontinuous layer
completely covered by an outer layer to provide differential gloss within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
OBVIOUSNESS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations (e.g.,
unexpected results). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013