Appeal No. 2004-1029
Application No. 09/747,529
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. More
particularly, we are of the view that the examiner's reasoning in
support of the obviousness rejection before us on appeal (as
expressed on pages 3-7 of the answer) is based almost entirely on
speculation and conjecture, and with regard to the basic
structure and color scheme of the towel defined in appellant's
claim 21 and the textile of claim 29 on appeal, relies entirely
upon appellant's own disclosure and teachings to supply that
which is lacking in the applied prior art references.
Basically, we share appellant's views as aptly expressed in
the brief and reply brief concerning the examiner's attempted
combination of the Hobson and Carpenter patents, the failure of
either Hobson or Carpenter to disclose borders adjacent each edge
of a towel or textile product and a central area within and
surrounded by the borders, which central area on one side of the
towel or textile product receives a graphic impression, and the
failure of either of the applied patents to teach or suggest the
particular color arrangement of the borders and central areas
required in the claims on appeal. We are also in agreement with
appellant concerning the examiner's bald conclusion that "it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007