10685587 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2006)

Ex Parte Mizuno

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 22, 2006

10685587 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte SEI-NO-SUKE MIZUNO ________________ Appeal 2006-2553 Application 10/685,587 Technology Center 1773 ________________ Decided: September 20, 2006 ________________ Before KIMLIN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 6, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2006-2553 Application 10/685,587 2 CITATION OF REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the appealed claims: Sidders US 4,183,975 Jan. 15, 1980 Parker US 4,403,004 Sep. 6, 1983 Vander Velden US 5,494,745 Feb. 27, 1996 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Parker and Vander Velden. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Parker, Vander Velden, and Sidders (Answer 3-6). Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer mailed April 30, 2006 for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the Briefs filed November 1, 2005 and January 12, 2006 for Appellant's arguments thereagainst. OPINION Appellant's invention relates to a sparkling laminate film. The laminate film comprises a substrate containing a metal vapor deposition layer formed on the front surface thereof, a transparent surface layer formed on the front surface of the metal vapor deposition layer and a backing material bonded to the back surface of the substrate through the use of an adhesive layer. Appellant asserts the claimed invention is useful for automotive moldings (Specification 1). Representative claim 1, as presented in the Brief, appears below: Appeal 2006-2553 Application 10/685,587 3 1. A sparkling laminate film comprised of a substrate, a metal vapor deposited layer formed on a front surface of said substrate, a transparent resin surface layer formed on the front surface of said metal vapor deposited layer, and a backing material integrally bonded to a back surface of said substrate through an adhesive layer. The Examiner has found that Parker teaches a decorative metalized laminate that comprises a substrate, a transparent resin surface layer, adhesive layers, and metal vapor deposition layers (Answer 3). The Examiner relies on the Vander Velden reference for teaching that it was conventional to use an adhesive layer to attach a backing to a substrate (Answer 4). The decorative laminate of Parker comprises two metal layers surrounding the base layer substrate (See Figure 1). Parker states "[t]he provision of metal coatings 14 and 16 on both broad surfaces of the base layer 12, forms a sandwiching relationship therewith that obscures visual distortion that frequently results when base 12 is subjected to subsequent deformation by thermo forming techniques" (Col. 5, ll. 18-22). This disclosure suggests that the two metal layers are essential to the invention of Parker. Thus, it is the Examiner's position that the use of an adhesive layer to attach the backing layer 22 to the metal coating 16 attached to the substrate 12 of Parker would meet the limitations of claim 1. We agree. Appellant argues that Parker does not disclose “a backing material integrally bonded to a back surface of said substrate through an adhesive layer” (Br. 5). Appellant argues that the claim language "a backing material Appeal 2006-2553 Application 10/685,587 4 integrally bonded to a back surface of said substrate through an adhesive layer" excludes intervening layers such as the metal deposition layer of Parker. Appellant also argues that the Vander Velden reference does not cure the deficiency of Parker (Br. 5). We cannot agree with the Appellant that the phrase “integrally bonded” excludes the metal layer described by Parker. From our perspective, the term “integrally” is sufficiently broad to embrace the attachment of the backing material through the metal vapor layer to the substrate as disclosed in Parker. Our reviewing court has on several prior occasions interpreted the term "integral" to cover more than a unitary construction. See, e.g, Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys., 887 F.2d 1070, 1074, 12 USPQ2d 1539, 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (nothing of record limited "integral" to mean "of one-piece" construction); In re Hotte, 475 F.2d 644, 647, 177 USPQ 326, 329 (CCPA 1973); In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Dike, 394 F.2d 584, 157 USPQ 581 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); and In re Clark, 214 F.2d 148, 102 USPQ 241 (CCPA 1954 The dictionary definition cited by Appellant (Br. 5) does not conclusively limit “integral” to exclude the intervening layer disclosed by Parker. In other words, Parker discloses all of the layers “essential to completeness.” Also, one definition in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary is “formed as a unit with another part.” Manifestly, the laminate of Parker is formed as a unit, and the inclusion of a metal layer between Appellant’s substrate and Appeal 2006-2553 Application 10/685,587 5 adhesive would result in an integral unit. Moreover, we find that it would have been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the metal backing of Parker along with its attendant advantage. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). We note that Appellant bases no argument on objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Parker, Vander Velden, and Sidders. We affirm. Appellant relies on the argument presented in the discussion of the above rejection. The Appellants have not disputed the reasons presented by the Examiner for combining the teachings of Sidders with Parker and Vander Velden (Br. 7). The rejection of claim 4 is affirmed for the reasons set forth above and by the Examiner. Appeal 2006-2553 Application 10/685,587 6 CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 1 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED clj Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC Lion Building 1233 20th Street N.W., Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036