Appeal No. 97-0256
Application 08/233,215
errors in this copy of the claims have been noted on page 2 of
the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 20).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Clarkson 1,449,145 Mar. 20, 1923
Rogow Des. 142,670 Oct. 23, 1945
“The Personal Touch™”, An Artistic Greeting Catalog, Fall,
1994, pg. 39, item A. A to Z Initial Pads. (PT)2
Claims 1, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over PT.
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over PT in view of Clarkson.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 stand additionally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rogow.
Claims 2 and 5 stand additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rogow in view of Clarkson.
While the date of this catalog is clearly subsequent to appellant's2
effective filing date, we note that appellant has not argued that PT is not
available as a prior art reference in this case. Accordingly, we assume that
the pads depicted in PT and relied upon by the examiner are prior art to
appellant and we proceed with our decision in this appeal on that basis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007