Appeal No. 96-4044
Application 08/396,253
Lappala et al. (Lappala) 3,214,320 Oct. 26, 1965
Andrews 3,347,527 Oct. 17, 1967
Schmanski et al. (Schmanski) 4,605,204 Aug. 12, 1986
Claims 34 through 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Andrews in view of Schmanski and Lappala.
The examiner concedes that claim 34 differs from Andrews by
reciting that the fencing is plastic and that the reflective tape
has a water resistant pressure sensitive adhesive. He concludes,
however, that the teaching of Schmanski would have made it
obvious to make Andrews’ fencing from plastic and that the
teachings of Lappala would have made it obvious to utilize a
water resistant pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering Andrews’
reflective tape to the backing strip.4
In addition, the examiner concedes that the applied
references do not teach the claimed relationship of the width of
the reflective tape to the height of the openings in the fence as
defined in claim 34 and as described supra. He nevertheless
contends that it ?would have been an obvious matter of
engineering design choice? (answer, page 5) to provide Andrews’
4 In our decision (Appeal No. 95-0172) in appellant’s parent application,
we agreed with these conclusions of obviousness.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007