Appeal No. 2005-1016
Application No. 10/326,780
that it is an object of the invention to indicate "the presence
of a vehicle to other vehicles in its vicinity" (column 2,
lines 13-14). As for appellant's argument that Lester does not
disclose the use of a decal, we are persuaded that Lester's
description of the reflector as "a fixed applique"1 that can "be
easily installed on the users vehicle"2 would have rendered
obvious the use of a decal to one of ordinary skill in the art.
We take official notice of the fact that it was well known in the
art to apply reflective decals to bicycles and the like.
Concerning separately argued claim 10 which calls for a
decal including a central portion and a plurality of radially
extending arms, we concur with the examiner that Figure 7 of
Lester would have suggested such a design. In general, it is a
matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to
configure an article of manufacture in any geometric shape.
Also, Lester specifically teaches that the reflector can be
"formed in a shape to be compatible with a preselected outside
portion of the vehicle" (column 2, lines 40-41).
We observe note that appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results,
1 Column 1, line 9.
2 Column 2, lines 20-21.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007