Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
be used, the examiner's first theory of the obviousness is not
well taken.
Second, the examiner notes that Mayer discloses a process
for painting murals that includes providing a small sized
picture of the completed version of mural. The examiner
posits that “the completed picture of the mural would also be
sufficient to read on specifying . . . the amount of paint to
be used” (final rejection page 11). The examiner further
opines that
the amounts of paint to be used can be seen and
extrapolated from the drawing of the completed
version of the mural. Since not [sic, no] specific
discussion with regard to the units or means for
measuring these amounts have been provided,
certainly a basic amount can be understood by an
ordinarily skilled person (i.e. a lot or a little),
as to relative and approximate amounts of paint to
be used, based on the amount needed as shown on the
completed picture of the mural. [Final rejection,
page 12.]
We do not consider that the ability of a person to look
at a downsized model of the final mural and make a
determination that either “a lot” or “a little” of a
particular color is to be used is sufficient to satisfy the
claim recitation of specifying the amounts needed for each of
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007