Appeal No. 98-2033
Application 08/507,623
For these reasons, the differences between the subject
matter recited in claim 1 and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2 through 10 which
stand or fall therewith, as being unpatentable over Jones. 2
The decision of the examiner is affirmed; however, since
the basic thrust of the affirmance differs from that advanced
by the examiner in support of the rejection, we designate the
affirmance to be a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR §
1.196(b) in order to provide the appellant with a fair
opportunity to react thereto. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d
1300, 1302, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27 (CCPA 1976).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new ground of
2In the event of further prosecution, both the examiner
and the appellant may wish to consider whether the references
in dependent claims 2 and 6 to a high-gloss pattern are
inconsistent with the definition of the pattern in parent
claims 1 and 5 as having both high-gloss and matte areas.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007