Appeal No. 2005-1016
Application No. 10/326,780
which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness
established by the examiner.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection of objected to claims 11 and
12, and allowed claim 13.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Pitchford in view of Lester. For the reasons discussed above, we
find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to apply a reflective decal over the locking plate of a
railcar to alert others of the presence of the railcar. Likewise,
we find that it would have been obvious to bend end portions of
the decal over the locking plate to enhance securement of the
decal. Such means of attachment for decals and other paper and
film material was well known to the general populace. As for the
claim 12 recitation of a particular design on the decal, the
selection of a specific design for a decal does not impart
patentability in the absence of unexpected results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pitchford
in view of Lester and the admitted prior art found at page 4 of
the instant specification. The specification acknowledges that
"a liquid reflectorized material of a known type" is applied
directly to the locking plate of the railway car (page 4,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007