Appeal No. 95-4546
Application No. 08/071,008
because a scanner and/or a CD ROM were conventional sources of
input data for a computer such as the one used by Morifuji. The
obviousness rejection of claim 18 is sustained because Morifuji
discloses (column 13, lines 10 through 14) that the cut-off
device 15 is a laser cutter.
The obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 20 is reversed
because we agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, paper number
16, page 12) that Morifuji is not concerned with “superimposing
functional indicia for an instrument face on a transparent
substrate over a color photograph.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed as to claims 1 through 3,
and is reversed as to claims 4 and 5. The decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 6 through 20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed as to claims 8 and 10 through 18, and is
reversed as to claims 6, 7, 9, 19, 20 and 23. Thus, the decision
of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007