Appeal Number: 2006-2531
Application Number: 09/910,641
Concerning claim 32 the appellant argues that Yonkers does
not disclose that the indicia can be messages and advertisements
(brief, page 17). In claim 32 the indicia also can be color,
and Yonkers discloses color (col. 3, line 11).
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Lee discloses that screen printing is well known and
discloses applying images (26) onto note posters (10) by screen
printing (col. 3, lines 39-47).
The appellant argues that Lee discloses screen printing
only onto a planar sheet and not onto a non-slip texture (brief,
page 18). The appellant provides no reason as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered the well known
screen printing technique used by Lee to be unsuitable for
textured surfaces, and none is apparent.
The appellant argues that Lee is not prior art because it
is predated by the appellant’s provisional application
60/220,357 filed July 24, 2000 (brief, pages 18-19). As
correctly pointed out by the examiner (answer, page 7), the
provisional application does not provide written descriptive
support for the screen printing recited in claim 27. Lee,
therefore, is prior art as to that claim.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013