Appeal No. 95-4546
Application No. 08/071,008
have been manifestly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to use paper in lieu of plastic film 30 in Figure 2 of Morifuji
since it is conventional in the art to wrap paper labels around a
can, and because Morifuji explains (column 12, line 55 through
column 13, line 10) that the film 30 is in a laminated condition
prior to the cutting step. The obviousness rejection of claims
12 through 14 is sustained because Morofuji can copy a limited
number of a multicolored instrument face such as a clock onto the
surfaces of cans.
The obviousness rejection of clam 9 is reversed because
Morofuji neither teaches nor would have suggested the step of
“assembling the instrument face with other functional components
to produce an operable instrument having a face with functional
indicia thereon.”
With respect to claims 15 through 18, appellant argues
(Brief, page 13) that “there is no disclosure seen in Morofuji et
al for the particular interface means as recited therein to print
a multi-color instrument face on a sheet of paper, or the
automatic cutting means to cut the instrument face from the sheet
of paper.” For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection
with claim 11, the obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 16 is
sustained. The obviousness rejection of claim 17 is sustained
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007