Appeal No. 95-4546
Application No. 08/071,008
simulation of the desired functional multicolor element onto a
piece” of the plastic “sheet material” (column 12, line 55
through column 13, line 1). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2 and 3 is
sustained because the cut-off device 15 in Figure 2 of Morofuji
is a laser that cuts the picture image from plastic sheet
material 30 (column 13, lines 10 through 13). The severed
picture image is then transferred and fused to the object 51 at
station 5.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 4 and 5 is
reversed because Morofuji does not teach a sheet material of
paper and thus does not disclose step (e) of laminating a sheet
of paper onto a piece of more rigid sheet material prior to the
practice of step (d).
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claim 6, appellant
argues that “[t]here is absolutely no suggestion whatsoever to
one of ordinary skill in the art for any modification of Morifuji
et al to provide the method of claim 6 wherein an instrument face
is printed on a sheet of paper and then is assembled with
mechanical and electrical components to produce an operable
instrument” (Brief, paper number 16, page 10). We agree. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007