Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
ordinary skill in the art.4
Accordingly, as argued, we shall sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 66, 67, 75 and 76 as being unpatentable
over Mayer in view of Milne, DePauw, Dowzall and Canning.
Rejection (f)
Claims 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97 and 100 stand rejected
as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Milne, DePauw, and
Ralph Lauren Paints.
Claims 79, 82, 85 and 88 of this grouping include
recitations about specifying amounts of paint needed for each
of the plurality of paints of the mural. We have reviewed the
Ralph Lauren Paints reference additionally relied upon by the
examiner in this ground of rejections, and conclude that it
does not make up for the deficiencies of Mayer, Milne and
DePauw in this regard. Accordingly, the standing § 103
rejections of claims 79, 82, 85 and 88 shall not be sustained.
4 In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (“The
test for obviousness is not . . . that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, it is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.”)
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007