Appeal No. 96-3064
Application 08/089,512
bottle and because products such as
windshield treatments must be shook
[sic] before it can be properly used.
In regard to claims 9, 10, 12, and 13,
Marks does not disclose making the
graphics on the front and rear labels in
the form of a car windshield on the
front label and an oncoming vehicle on
the rear label. It would have been
obvious to one in the art to modify
Marks by replacing the graphics on the
front and rear labels with that taught
by the applicant since the type of
indicia displayed can be modified to
form any desired display."
[Final Rejection at 2-3]
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the examiner and the appellant. As a
result of this review, we have determined that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of these claims
is reversed.
As an initial matter, we must point out that all claims
on appeal are method claims which are restricted to the use of
displaying and simulating the functioning of a windshield
treatment. Turning to the Marks disclosure, it is our finding
that Marks discloses a bottle containing a liquid 15, which for
example, may be an alcoholic beverage or the like. The front
label in Marks has a cut-away window 16 through which a portion
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007