Appeal No. 1998-0668
Application 08/036,650
layout from selected tints (plural) (col. 6, lines 3-20),
that a multicolor image is being produced using the kit in
Phillips.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation for
limiting the number of different printing inks that can be
applied to a specific area to a maximum of three as recited
in claims 20 and 22 (Br7).
That portion of the color atlas in Phillips which uses
up to three inks (all columns except column 1) meets the
claim limitation of up to three inks.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of
claims 20-22 is sustained. Claims 23, 29, and 30 are not
separately argued and fall with claims 20 and 21. The
rejection of claims 23, 29, and 30 is also sustained.
Appellant argues that the limitations of claims 24-26,
31, 34, and 35 are not disclosed by Phillips at column 3,
lines 7-12, as relied on by the Examiner (Br7). Appellant
argues that "[i]n the absence of any evidence, an Examiner's
allegation of obviousness is improper" (Br7).
We do not find where the Examiner responds to these
arguments. The statement of the rejection relies on
- 19 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007