Ex Parte Herslow

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

12006168 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/006,168 12/31/2007 John Herslow HERSLOW 3 6016
7590 12/22/2015
HENRY I. SCHANZER, ESQ
29 BROOKFALL RD
EDISON, NJ 08817
EXAMINER
REDDY, SATHAVARAM I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2015 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN HERSLOW
____________

Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,1681
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–17. Claims 18–25 are
pending, but have been withdrawn from consideration and are not before us
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Composecure, LLC.
App. Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Specification (Spec.) filed December 31,
2007, the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final) mailed October 26, 2012,
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 10, 2013, the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed October 4, 2013, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (Reply
Br.) filed December 2, 2013.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a multi-layered or composite card. Spec. 1:4–
5. To increase security of such a card, Appellant discloses that it was known
to form holograms on the card. Id. at 1:20–21. Appellant further discloses
that “[g]enerally, the holograms may be formed by a hot stamping method
at, or near, the top (or bottom) surface (level) of the card.” Id. at 1:21–2:1.
However, Appellant discloses so placing the hologram at the surface of the
card allows for tampering of and/or damage to the card (hologram), and
creates asymmetry in the card’s construction. Id. at 2:1–10. To solve these
disadvantages, Appellant discloses forming a hologram or diffraction grating
at, or in, the center, or core layer, of the card with symmetrical layers formed
above and below the center or core layer. Id. at 2:20–3:2.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An assembly for forming a document comprising:
a clear plastic core layer having first and second, spaced
apart, surfaces, extending generally parallel to each other;
a pattern embossed on, or in, said first surface of the clear
plastic core layer;
a metal or a metal compound vapor deposited on the
embossed pattern to form an embossed metalized pattern
whereby light incident on the embossed metalized pattern
produces a reflected light pattern corresponding to the
embossed metalized pattern and wherein the vapor deposited
metal, or metal compound, forms a layer which is thin
enough to allow see-through; and
a selected number N of clear plastic layers formed on top
of the embossed metalized pattern and a like number N of
clear plastic buffer layers formed below the second surface
of the clear plastic core layer; where N is an integer equal to,
or greater than, one; said selected layers for forming a
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

3
document having an embossed metalized pattern located
along said first surface of the clear plastic core layer so as to
be centrally located relative to a direction perpendicular to
said first and second surfaces of the clear plastic core layer
and protected and also for inhibiting the unauthorized
alteration of the embossed metalized pattern while enabling
the embossed metalized pattern to be visible.
The Rejections
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests review of, the
following grounds of rejection:
A. Claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking
adequate written descriptive support;
B. Claim 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite;
C. Claims 1–12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kaminsky3 in view of Herslow4 and Gunn;5
D. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn, further in view of Takahashi;6,7
E. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn, further in view of Chatwin;8

3 US 7,063,924 B2, issued June 20, 2006 (hereinafter “Kaminsky”).
4 US 6,644,552 B1, issued November 11, 2003.
5 US 6,066,594, issued May 23, 2000 (hereinafter “Gunn”).
6 US 2004/0031855 A1, published February 19, 2004.
7 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection in the Final Office Action and
Answer set forth the combination of Kaminsky, Herslow, and Takahashi
only. Final 24; Ans. 3. However, the Examiner indicates that the omission
of Gunn from the statement of this ground of rejection was a typographical
error. Ans. 4. Although Appellant indicates that the Examiner’s reference
to “typographical errors” does not seem to be correct, Appellant does not
further object to these corrections. Accordingly, we hold the omission of
Gunn in this statement of rejection to be harmless error.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

4
F. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn, further in view of Wilkie;9 and
G. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn, further in view of Schulz.10,11

ANALYSIS
Rejection A: § 112, ¶ 1, written description12
The Examiner finds that the limitation, “embossed metalized pattern,”
as used in claims 1–6 lacks adequate written descriptive support. Final 3.
The Examiner next finds that the limitations, “said selected layers for
forming a document having a patterned layer,” “so as to be centrally
located,” “embossed metalized pattern,” and “N” as an integer each lack
adequate written descriptive support. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends that the Specification repeatedly discusses
embossing a pattern on, or in, a core layer and vapor deposing a metal layer
on the pattern. App. Br. 13. Appellant further urges that Figures 1–4 and
the associated descriptions of these drawings in the Specification provide
support for each of these limitations. Id. at 15. For example, Appellant

8 US 5,492,370, issued February 20, 1996 (hereinafter “Chatwin”).
9 US 2001/0049004 A1, published December 6, 2001.
10 US 2003/0194532 A1, published October 16, 2003 (hereinafter “Schulz”).
11 We note that the Examiner’s restatement of this rejection in the Answer,
page 4, erroneously substitutes Wilkie for Gunn. As the Examiner merely
maintains this rejection from the Final Office Action, and Appellant has not
indicated any basis for misinterpreting the basis of this rejection in either the
Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief, we hold this to be harmless error.
12 We note the Examiner withdrew certain aspects of this rejection, in
particular with regard to language in claims 15 and 17. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we confine our review only to those aspects of the rejection
that the Examiner maintains.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

5
notes the Specification, page 12, teaches the hologram is formed at the
center of the structure. Id. In addition, Appellant notes that, in addition to
the Figures, the Specification, pages 13 and 14, teaches that the core 20,
including a patterned layer, may be part of a subassembly 30 to which
additional layers may be attached to form the card. Id. As such, Appellant
urges that reciting N layers, where N is greater than or equal to one, is
clearly shown in the Specification and drawings. Id. Further, Appellant
notes that the Specification defines the term “card” to include a large variety
of documents. Id.
“[The written description] inquiry is a factual one and must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc.,
230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner “bears the initial
burden . . . of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Insofar as the written
description requirement is concerned, that burden is discharged by
“presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art
would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the
invention defined by the claims.” . . . If . . . the specification
contains a description of the claimed invention, albeit not in
ipsis verbis (in the identical words), then the examiner . . . , in
order to meet the burden of proof, must provide reasons why
one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the
description sufficient.
In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976)).
We are persuaded that the Examiner’s findings are in error. Indeed,
the Specification, page 10, teaches “the hologram may be formed by
embossing the top surface 21a to form a diffraction pattern and then
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

6
metallizing the pattern,” (emphasis added). This teaching provides adequate
written descriptive support for the expression, “embossed metalized
pattern.” Although the Examiner finds that this expression implies that the
metal layer is embossed, we disagree. In the context of the present
disclosure, one skilled in the art would understand that the expression,
“embossed metalized pattern” refers to an embossed pattern that has been
metalized.
Moreover, the Specification, pages 2 and 3 teach that the “hologram
or diffraction grating [is] formed at, or in, the center, or core layer, of the
card with symmetrical layers formed above and below the center or core
layer.” This teaches provides adequate written descriptive support for the
expression “so as to be centrally located.” Although the Examiner finds that
Appellant’s Figure 1 provides six layers below and only five layers above
the embossed core layer, this finding is in error as the embossed core layer
21 is the layer that is centrally located and should not be counted as one of
the N plastic layers. Reply Br. 4.
As to “N” integer layers, the Specification, page 3, teaches that these
symmetrical layers “are selectively attached to the top and bottom surfaces
of the core layer.” In addition, “for each additional layer attached to the top
surface of the core layer there is a corresponding like layer attached to the
bottom surface of the core layer for producing a highly symmetrical
structure (sandwich).” Spec. 3:7–10. Thus, though there is no ipsis verbis
support for “N” layers, the Examiner has not shown why the above
Specification teachings do not provide adequate support for such “N” layers
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

7
Finally, as noted by Appellant, the Specification teaches that the term
“card” is intended to include a large variety of documents. App. Br. 15;
Spec. 1:6–11. Given the other above discussed descriptions, this latter
teaching is sufficient written descriptive support for the expression, “said
selected layers for forming a document having a patterned layer.”
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s written description
rejection.
Rejection B: § 112, ¶ 2, indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is indefinite for a variety of
reasons. Final 5. In particular, the Examiner determines that it is not clear
what surface of the core layer the pattern is formed on or in. Id. In addition,
the Examiner determines that it is not clear if the layered pattern and the
patterned layer are the same or different layers. Id. The Examiner further
determines that “said selected layers” in claim 1 lacks sufficient antecedent
basis. Id. The Examiner also finds in claim 1, it is not clear how the pattern
layer is centrally located, i.e., whether it is vertically or horizontally
centered. Id.
Appellant contends that claim 1 is unambiguous. App. Br. 18. We
agree. Claim 1 recites a clear plastic core layer having first and second,
spaced apart, generally parallel surfaces. The pattern is recited to be
embossed on, or in, the first surface. We find no ambiguity as to what
surface of the core layer the pattern is formed on or in. Similarly, claim 1
recites a selected number N of clear plastic layers formed on top of the
embossed metalized pattern and a like number N of clear plastic buffer
layers formed below the second surface of the clear plastic core layer. Thus,
“a selected number N of clear plastic layers . . . and a like number N of clear
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

8
plastic buffer layers” clearly provides sufficient antecedent support for “said
selected layers.” As for the confusion over “layered pattern” and “patterned
layer,” we are unable to locate either expression in claim 1. Thus, claim 1
cannot be indefinite on the basis of language not present therein, regardless
of the merits of the issue the Examiner raised. With regard to the orientation
of the centrally located embossed metalized pattern, as we understand the
Examiner’s position, claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear whether the
pattern is horizontally centered or vertically centered. We disagree. Claim 1
recites that the pattern is centrally located relative to a direction
perpendicular to the first and second surfaces of the core layer. As the first
and second surfaces must be generally parallel to each other, an orientation
perpendicular thereto provides a clear frame of reference for the central
location of the pattern. In addition, such an orientation is consistent with
Appellant’s drawings which depict a pattern centrally located in a direction
perpendicular within a plurality of generally parallel layers.
The Examiner further determines claim 2 is indefinite because there is
insufficient antecedent basis for “selected number of clear plastic layers”
and “the top surface of the embossed metalized pattern.” Final 6. Appellant
contends that each of these recitations has clear antecedence in claim 1.
App. Br. 18–19. We agree. Claim 1 recites “a selected number N of clear
plastic layers.” The Examiner does not explain why this phrase does not
provide clear antecedence to claim 2’s recitation of “said selected number of
clear plastic layers,” merely noting that they are different. The difference,
dropping the “N” in claim 2 does not itself rise to either lack of antecedence
or indefiniteness. With regard to “the top surface of the embossed metalized
pattern,” we note claim 1 recites the selected number N of clear plastic
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

9
layers are “formed on top of the embossed metalized pattern.” Given that
claim 1 recites stacking of layers on top of the embossed metalized pattern
and below the second surface of the core layer, we find no ambiguity in the
placement of the first clear plastic buffer layer attached to the top surface of
the embossed metalized pattern. In other words, once the metal layer is
formed on top of the embossed pattern on or in the first surface of the core
layer, such metal layer implicitly includes a top surface. No further
antecedent support for the top surface is required.
The Examiner next determines claim 6 to be indefinite because there
is insufficient antecedent basis for “core clear plastic layer.” Final 7. The
Examiner suggests this expression should be “clear plastic core layer.” Id.
While there may be some preference for the Examiner’s suggested language
rising to the level of a claim objection, in that it maintains the original
ordering of the descriptors “clear plastic” and “core,” we do not find claim 6
to be indefinite as a result of the reordering of these descriptors.
With regard to claim 10, the Examiner determines “the phrase ‘a few
atoms thick’ is unclear in that any thickness is ‘a few atoms thick’ and an
actual numerical thickness of the metal layer should be given.” Final 7. But
the Examiner has ignored the further language in the claim “so as to be
sufficiently thin to allow light to pass through all the layers for enabling see-
through while at the same time enabling a visible image to be reflected.”
The claim itself provides guidance.
Moreover, when interpreting claim language, it is appropriate to look
to the specification for guidance. “The test for definiteness is whether one
skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in
light of the specification.” Miles Labs, Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870,
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

10
875 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “When a word of degree is used the [fact-finder] must
determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for
measuring that degree.” Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packaging,
Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, the Specification teaches that the thickness of the vapor-
deposited metal layer is thick enough to reflect an image, but thin enough to
be nearly transparent and provide a “see-through” effect. Spec. 8:5–9. In
this context, the Examiner has not shown that there is an insufficient
teaching in the disclosure for determining the scope of the phrase in
question. Indeed, Appellant proffers a range for thicknesses which one
skilled in art, given the teachings of Appellant’s disclosure, would consider
to be “a few atoms thick.” See App. Br. 7. The Examiner fails to show
otherwise.
Finally, the Examiner determines claim 14 to be indefinite as to the
phrase “on one side of the document.” Final 8. According to the Examiner,
it is unclear if the opening is in the document or in the assembly, and
whether this limitation is intended use or actual structure. Id. However, as
Appellant notes, claim 14 recites “including an opening on one side of the
assembly” (emphasis added). Thus, there is no ambiguity in that the opening
is in the assembly. Further, the Examiner provides no basis for questioning
whether this opening in the assembly is actual structure versus merely
intended use—it is clearly structure.
For these reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

11
Rejection C: Obviousness over Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn
Appellant does not present separate arguments with regard to the
claims under this rejection. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–
12 and 14 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2010).
The Examiner finds Kaminsky discloses a multilayer laminate
comprising a core layer of clear plastic having top and bottom surfaces, a
pattern formed on the surface of the core layer, a metal layer formed on the
pattern to form a metalized pattern, and two clear plastic layers formed on
top of the embossed metalized pattern and two clear plastic layers formed
below the core layer thereby centrally locating the pattern within the
laminate.13 Final 14. The Examiner further finds Herslow discloses a
multilayer laminate comprising clear plastic buffer layers on the top and
bottom surfaces of a core layer, where the first and second clear plastic
layers have the same thickness and the third and fourth layers formed over
the first and second layers have selected information. Id. at 15. The
Examiner also finds Gunn discloses adhesive layers between first and
second clear plastic layers. Id. at 18. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to include buffer layers in Kaminsky’s multilayer
laminate as taught by Herslow in order to accommodate and mitigate bond
stresses and to include adhesive layers in Kaminsky’s multilayer laminate as
taught by Gunn in order to make it less susceptible to cracking. Id. at 19.

13 The Examiner also interprets that the selected number and the like number
of clear plastic layers both can be zero. However, regardless of the merits of
this interpretation, this is inapplicable to claim 1 which specifically requires
that the selected number and like number be an integer greater than or equal
to one. Nonetheless, we hold this to be harmless error since the Examiner
finds Kaminsky teaches two clear plastic layers above and below the pattern.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

12
Appellant contends that the none of Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn
teach or suggest 1) embossing a pattern on or in a core layer; 2) embossing a
pattern in an embossing layer; and 3) depositing a metal layer which is thin
enough to allow “see-through.” App. Br. 38. In addition, Appellant argues
that Kaminsky in combination with Herslow and Gunn fail to show forming
a document with an embossed metalized pattern in the center of the
assembly, with a like number of protective layers above and below. Id. at
39–40.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. Claim 1 is directed to an assembly
for forming a document, which we interpret as directed to an apparatus, i.e. a
structure which can be termed a machine or manufacture under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Thus, claim 1 is a structural claim and as such must be distinguished
from the prior art based on structure. “[I]t is the patentability of the product
claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established.” In
re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535 (CCPA 1972). Although Appellant attempts to
distinguish Kaminsky’s pattern formed by cast transferring from the
embossed pattern of claim 1 by asserting that they are structurally and
functionally different (Reply Br. 9), Appellant fails to direct our attention to
any structural or functional difference, or to any evidentiary support for this
assertion.
As to the limitation that the metal layer is thin enough to allow see-
through as well as the thickness of a few atoms, the Examiner finds that
Kaminsky’s metal layer covers this limitation “as any thickness would read
on this limitation.” Ans. 11. Although it is both logically incorrect and
contrary to Kaminsky’s teaching that any thickness would allow see-
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

13
through, we hold this finding to be harmless error. Kaminsky teaches that
the metal thickness may be between 10 and 5,000 angstroms which overlaps
the range Appellant asserts for the range of a few atoms to allow see-
through. Compare Kaminsky 10:22–36 with App. Br. 37.
Turning to Appellant’s argument that the Kaminsky, Herslow, and
Gunn combination fails to show forming the pattern in the center of the
assembly, with a like number of protective layers above and below,
Appellant further adds “that the combination of Herslow . . . and Kaminsky
is contraindicated since there is no basis for adding layers to the ‘underside’
of Kaminsky’s base 12.” Reply Br. 11. We do not find Appellant’s
arguments persuasive of reversible error. Appellant fails to address the
Examiner’s specific finding that Herslow teaches layers above and below the
core layer for the purpose of accommodating and mitigating bond stresses.
Thus, Herslow provides the basis for adding layers to the underside of
Kaminsky’s base, and Appellant fails to establish otherwise.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
based on the combination of Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn.
Rejections D and F: Obviousness over Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn,
further in view of Takahashi and Wilkie
Appellant does not substantively argue either the Examiner’s findings
or obviousness conclusions with regard to these rejections. Instead,
Appellant merely alleges that the applied references fail to teach or suggest
the claimed card/document structure. See App. Br. 42. As our reviewing
court has held, a party that offers only “a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art” waives any argument with respect to those claim
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

14
elements. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we will sustain each of these rejections.
Rejection E: Obviousness of claim 15 over Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn,
further in view of Chatwin
Claim 15 depends from claim 2, and further requires additional layers
attached to the third and fourth layers, wherein selected layers include
selected information and a window is formed within the pattern to enable the
selected information to be seen. The Examiner relies on Chatwin for
teaching of a window formed in a pattern in a multilayer laminate. Final 28.
The Examiner, therefore, concludes it would have been obvious to include a
window in Kaminsky’s pattern as taught by Chatwin in order to provide a
viewing such that an optical effect can be seen. Id.
Appellant contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Chatwin
fails to teach a window within a pattern, but instead teaches a window to
allow the pattern to be seen. App. Br. 43. In addition, Appellant argues that
Chatwin’s metallic coating is opaque in contrast to Appellant’s see-through
metal layer. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding regarding Chatwin. Although the Examiner directs
attention to Chatwin, Figure 8f and column 14, lines 54–61, as support for a
window 52 in the pattern, as Appellant contends, Chatwin’s window 52
enables the underlying pattern to be visible. Chatwin, 14:32–35 (“The
coating 51 is FIG. 8a is printed such that an underlying optically variable
effect generating structure, e.g. to generate a hologram, is visible as an
individual geometric area 52.”) Thus, Chatwin’s window is formed over the
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

15
pattern, rather than within the pattern as claim 15 requires (to enable the
selected information in selected ones of the additional layers to be seen).
It follows that we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 15.
Rejection G: Obviousness of claim 17 over Kaminsky, Herslow, and Gunn,
further in view of Schulz
Claim 17 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the pattern is
customized by applying a laser beam to the pattern. The Examiner finds
Schulz teaches that a pattern may be customized by laser ablation. Final 31.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to have
modified Kaminsky’s pattern by laser ablation as taught by Schulz. Id. at
32.
Appellant argues that Schulz does not teach or suggest the application
of a laser beam to the pattern, where the pattern refers to the metalized
pattern embossed in a core layer. App. Br. 45. However, Appellant fails to
address or otherwise identify reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
regarding Schulz’s teaching. Further, Appellant’s argument that the pattern
refers to a metalized pattern embossed in a core layer is not commensurate
with the limitation of claim 17. Claim 17 does not require laser
customization of a metalized pattern. Rather, claim 17 only requires that the
pattern is laser customized. One skilled in the art would have found it
obvious to have applied laser customization as taught by Schulz to
Kaminsky’s pattern prior to metallization with a reasonable expectation of
success. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Appeal 2014-002089
Application 12/006,168

16
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–14, 16, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaminsky, Herslow, and
Gunn, alone or further in view of Takahashi, Wilkie, or Schulz, is affirmed.
However, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, and second paragraph, as indefinite, is reversed.
Moreover, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Kaminsky, Herslow, Gunn, and
Chatwin is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

bar