Appeal No. 96-3920
Application 08/151,891
Appellants’ invention pertains to a marking pen, a method
of unclogging a marking pen, and to a method of using a
marking pen. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 8 and 10, copies of
which appear in the “APPENDIX” to the main brief (Paper No.
14).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Gaines 1,271,457 Jul. 02, 1918
Bok 3,905,709 Sep. 16, 1975
Abe et al. (Abe) 4,568,214 Feb. 04, 1986
Dahm 1,811,081 Jun. 11,
1970
(Germany) 2
Hong 2,194,138 Mar. 02,
1988
(Great Britain)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 through 12 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
Our understanding of this document is derived from a reading of a2
translation thereof prepared for the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. A copy of the translation is appended to this opinion.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007