Appeal No. 2002-1002
Application No. 08/820,506
fails to establish why one of ordinary skill in the art, in
considering the McCord patent, would have been motivated to look
to the teachings of Pecora which is directed to an entirely
different application.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness and the rejection of
claim 17 as unpatentable over McCord in view of Pecora is
reversed.
4. The rejection of claims 14-16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lochner.
Claim 14
Similar to the traversal of the examiner’s rejection based
on McCord, appellant’s arguments are limited to his contention
that the preamble constitutes a claim limitation. For the
reasons set forth above, we have concluded that the preamble of
claim 14 does not limit the scope of the claim. Therefore, we
are in agreement with the examiner that Lochner renders obvious
claim 14 for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s answer (see
page 5). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable
over Lochner is affirmed.
Claim 15
Claim 15 requires that the claimed three layer pliable sheet
like vehicle laundry element is made by cutting a sheet like body
into a desired shape of the element to expose “the distinct color
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007