Appeal No. 96-3553
Application 08/324,476
vehicle that would aid in theft prevention of the vehicle”
(answer, page 5).
The combined teachings of Dillon and Guinta provide
reasonable support for this conclusion. What is lacking in these
combined teachings, however, is any suggestion of incorporating
Dillon’s micro-dots into a vehicle coating “selected from the
group consisting of a top coating paint, an inner coating paint,
an underseal coating and a protective wax coating” as recited in
claim 1. The examiner’s failure to respond to the appellants’
arguments on this point (see the fifth through the eighth page
in the brief ) is quite telling, but is certainly understandable2
given the noted deficiency in the references.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1, or of claims 2 through 4
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Dillon in view
of Guinta.
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 5 and 7, which depend ultimately from
claim 1, as being unpatentable over Dillon in view of Guinta
2The pages in the appellants’ brief are not formally
numbered.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007