Appeal 2007-1262
Application 10/697,532
The Appellants argue that the Chen patent claims are all directed to a
product, rather than a method, and that this claimed product is not defined as
comprising a surface which is first textured and then printed with a printed
pattern in registration with the textured surface (Br. 32-39). While this is
true, these method and product features would have been suggested by
Hansson and Casto. The Appellants’ contrary view regarding this last-
mentioned point is not well taken for reasons fully explained above.
Under these circumstances, we also hereby sustain the obviousness-
type double patenting rejections of all appealed claims over the claims of
Chen ‘009, Chen ‘460, and Chen ‘934 in view of Hansson and further in
view of Casto.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
Kilyk & Bowersox, P.L.L.C.
400 Holiday Court
Suite 102
Warrenton, VA 20186
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013