Appeal No. 1999-1991 Page 6
Application No. 08/611,725
The scope and content of the applied prior art are set
forth on pages 8-10 of the final rejection. After determining
the scope and content of the prior art, the examiner
ascertained that Conklin's applique lacks the claimed
pressure sensitive adhesive material coated thereon.
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(final rejection, pp. 8-9) that it would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to attach the applique 32 of Conklin to the
blades by means of pressure sensitive adhesive material coated
thereon such that the applique is removable from the fan
without causing damage to the blade surface as taught by
Carnahan.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims on appeal include an applique made of
flexible material having a rear surface coated with a pressure
sensitive adhesive material which permits the applique to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007