Appeal No. 1999-1039
Application No. 08/876,762
The appellant's invention is directed to a camouflage
structure. The claims before us on appeal have been
reproduced in an appendix to the Brief.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Volk 2,255,837 Sep. 16, 1941
Nilsson (PCT) 91/19872 Dec. 26, 1991
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 11 and 12 on the basis of Nilsson.
(2) Claims 3 and 13 on the basis of Nilsson and Volk.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 14) and the Appellant’s Brief
(Paper No. 13).
OPINION
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007