Appeal No. 97-2504
Application 08/200,707
that a printed protective layer would have been obvious in view
of Kogo. There is also no reason suggested by Kogo why the
artisan would deliberately leave part of the colored layer
unprotected. The only reason for exposing a portion of the
colored layer comes from appellants’ own disclosure. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Kogo.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Sugaya, the examiner basically
relies on the same arguments discussed above with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 over Cocco and Sugaya. Likewise, appellants
point out the same differences argued above with respect to claim
1.
We agree with appellants that Sugaya does not suggest the
invention of claims 1 and 3 for the same reasons discussed above.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Sugaya.
In conclusion, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3 is reversed.
REVERSED
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007