Appeal No. 98-0103 Page 9
Application No. 08/248,745
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Independent claims 1 and 16, recite, inter alia, a license
plate cover apparatus comprising a substantially flat piece of
laser absorptive material which absorbs more than 60% of laser
energy generated by a laser beam impinging upon a surface of the
laser absorptive material. Independent claim 10, recites, inter
alia, a license plate cover apparatus comprising a substantially
flat piece of laser absorptive material which absorbs more than
60% of a predetermined wavelength generated by a laser beam.
In our opinion, the combined teachings of all the applied
prior art (i.e., Kluck and the absorptive materials admitted on
page 7 of the specification to be well known) would not have been
suggestive of providing a license plate cover apparatus with a
substantially flat piece of a laser absorptive material which
absorbs either (1) more than 60% of laser energy generated by a
laser beam impinging upon a surface of the laser absorptive
material, or (2) more than 60% of a predetermined wavelength
generated by a laser beam. Thus, we are constrained to reverse
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007