Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
§ 103 rejections of claims 65, 68 and 74 shall not be
sustained.
Claims 66, 67, 75 and 76, on the other hand, do not
include any recitation about specifying amounts of paint
needed to paint the mural, and thus the rejection of these
claims requires further analysis.2 With respect to these
claims, appellant’s arguments in favor of patentability are
found on page 14 of the brief, where appellant presents
arguments directed against the basic combination of Mayer,
Milne and DePauw, and on pages 15-16 of the brief, where
appellant presents arguments directed against the examiner’s
further reliance on Dowzall and Canning. We note at the
outset that these arguments are very general. For example, on
page 14 of the brief, appellant notes the claim limitations
“providing instructions . . . on how to paint a mural” and
“providing a picture of a completed version of the mural,”
(emphasis original) and merely argues that the examiner’s
2 Since claims 66, 67, 75 and 76 do not contain any recitation about
specifying amounts of paint needed to paint the mural, appellant’s extensive
arguments on pages 18-22 regarding that terminology do not apply. Likewise,
appellant’s argument in section XII of the brief spanning pages 22 and 23 do
not apply to claims 66, 67, 75 and 76 because said claims do not contain the
“color samples from a paint manufacturer” terminology argued in section XII.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007