Appeal No. 2004-1992
Application No. 10/223,982
sustain the standing rejection of claims 1, 3-34 and 36-39 as
being unpatentable over Ramirez in view of Ruff.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to claims 2, 35 and
40, which stand rejected as being unpatentable over Ramirez in
view of Ruff taken further in view of Lopata. While we
appreciate that Lopata teaches the use of helical ribbon strands
in a decorative bow, consideration of the examiner’s basic
reference combination further in view of Lopata’s teachings does
not cause us to alter the position we voiced above that the
combination of Ramirez and Ruff fails to disclose or teach the
claimed subject matter found in each of the independent claims on
appeal, namely, a decorative bow comprising a plurality of ribbon
strands and at least one die cut piece comprising a spine and at
least one design artifact extending from the spine. Hence, we
also shall not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 35 and 40 as
being unpatentable over Ramirez in view of Ruff and further in
view of Lopata.
Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of
the following matter.
US Patent 6,450,933 to Gruenke, of record, discloses in
Figure 2 a decorative foil assembly 20b comprising a body made up
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007