Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
view of Canning, and claims 64 and 73 stand rejected as being
unpatentable further in view of Dowzall. Each of these
claims, through their dependency, includes recitations
concerning specifying amounts of paint needed for each of the
plurality of paints of the mural. We have carefully reviewed
the Canning and Dowzall references additionally relied upon in
these rejections but find nothing therein which makes up for
the deficiencies of Mayer, Milne and DePauw in this regard.
Accordingly, we also shall not sustain the standing § 103
rejections of these claims.
Rejection (e)
Claims 65-68 and 74-76 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Mayer in view of Milne, DePauw, Dowzall and
Canning.
Claims 65, 68 and 74 of this grouping include recitations
about specifying amounts of paint needed for each of the
plurality of paints of the mural, which, as indicated above,
are not taught by the applied references. Thus, the standing
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007