Appeal No. 1998-0889
Application 08/006,585
material and a matted finish at column 4, line 7, and column 3, lines
43+ (EA7). Appellant argues that Cannistra does not disclose
printing on a prepared writing surface, but instead discloses a
coating which is placed over the already printed information (Br22).
We agree with Appellant that the coating and the magnetic foil strip
in Cannistra are not part of a prepared writing surface. While we
believe that at least a matted finish was known for such purposes as
a signature strip, there is no teaching of using it for printing of
information by a printer. The rejection of claims 16 and 18 is
reversed.
Claim 47 describes the structure of the plotter, including an
indentation to hold the card and a finger hole for assisting in
removing the card from the cardholder. The Examiner takes Official
Notice that it would have been obvious to design a finger hole to
facilitate removal of the card (EA8, with respect to claim 24).
Appellant argues that this is inappropriate for Official Notice
(Br26). We agree with Appellant and find no other reasons that could
be relied on. For at least this reason we conclude the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection
of claim 47 is reversed.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007