Ex parte ABERSFELDER et al. - Page 6




                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