Appeal No. 95-4546
Application No. 08/071,008
obviousness rejection of claim 6 is reversed, and the obviousness
rejection of claims 7 and 23 is likewise reversed because these
claims depend from claim 6.
Claim 8 on appeal requires the copying of an instrument face
on a sheet material, and then cutting out the copied shape from
the sheet of material. The examiner is of the opinion that the
pictorial image stored by the computer in Morofuji “would have
been any design desired to be photocopied by the user” onto the
surface of the cans (Answer, page 6). In other words, it is the
examiner’s position that an instrument face (e.g., a clock face)
can be copied onto the surface of a can in Morofuji.
The first declaration (paper number 5) submitted in rebuttal
to the examiner’s position with respect to claim 8 and the other
claims found obvious by the examiner states in paragraphs 2 and
11 that the disclosed and claimed invention solved a long-felt
need in the market for “the ability to quickly and cost
effectively produce high quality instrument dials,” “multi-
colored clock dials or other instrument faces.” The second
declaration (paper number 8) indicates in paragraph 4 that “[t]he
catalog of Exhibit E describes some of the significant commercial
advantages of the products produced according to my invention and
in my view supports my earlier declaration about the unobviouness
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007