Appeal No. 96-3225
Application 08/229,322
if we accede to the examiner’s conclusion that the required
suggestion lies in knowing what would result from the
Palmquist method, the combination of teachings still fails to
render obvious the step of depositing the reflective material
in a “second imagewise pattern,” for such does not exist in
the methods of either reference.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of the Danish reference and Palmquist fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of claim 16, and we will not sustain the
Section 103 rejection thereof. Nor, it follows, will we
sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, 21 through 23, 25 and
27 through 30, which depend from claim 16.
Claims 19, 20 and 26 stand rejected on the basis of the
Danish reference and Palmquist, taken further in view of
Bingham, which was cited for its teaching of reflective flakes
having characteristics which fall within the scope of the
limitations added by these claims to independent claim 16.
However, Bingham fails to alleviate the deficiencies in the
basic combination of references, and therefore we also will
not sustain this rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007