Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
basic combination of Mayer, Milne and DePauw “does not satisfy
these limitations and other[] [unspecified limitations] of the
claims.” On pages 15-16 of the brief, appellant’s argument
mirrors the above argument in that appellant merely contends
that “[n]one of the combination of Mayer, Milne, Depauw,
Dowzall and/or Canning et al. disclose instructions for
painting a mural or discloses a completed picture of the
mural, required by claims 65, 66-68, and 74-76” (emphasis in
original). These arguments are not persuasive.3
The Mayer reference applied in the rejection of these
claims pertains to mural painting. Among other things, Mayer
informs the artisan that the technical requirements for mural
painting are similar to those for oil and tempera easel
picture painting (page 316), that the mural painter, before
commencing work, assembles “a rather complete set of plans,
3 We are aware that claims 66, 67, 75 and 76 contain limitations
regarding providing measuring cups having tick marks and sealable lids for
said cups. However, appellant does not argue these limitations as differences
and thus it will be assumed that they do not patentably distinguish over the
examiner’s reference combination. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d
388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”); In re
Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979) (arguments must
first be presented to the Board).
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007