Appeal No. 1997-4439
Application No. 08/452,125
“adhesive-abrasive” particles within the meaning of the claim
language in question. Accordingly, even if we agreed with the
examiner that Reed’s disclosure at column 7, lines 16-20 that
his solid particles form a fine matt surface which functions
to improve the printability, drawing and typing properties of
the transfer layer establishes that Reed’s particles
inherently possess a sufficiently rough surface for abrading
crayon as called for in the appealed claims, we still cannot
agree with the examiner that Reed anticipates the rejected
claims. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
appealed claims 8-10, 14, 18, and 20. Since the examiner’s
obviousness rejections of appealed claims 19 and 11-13 are
deficient for the same reason, these rejections cannot be
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007