Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
unpatentable over Mayer in view of Milne, DePauw and Canning;
(d) claims 64 and 73, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Milne, DePauw and
Dowzall;
(e) claims 65-68 and 74-76, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Milne, DePauw,
Dowzall and Canning; and
(f) claims 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97 and 100, rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view
of Milne, DePauw, Dowzall and Ralph Lauren Paints.
In addition to seeking review of the foregoing
rejections, appellant has raised as issues in the appeal the
propriety of (1) the examiner’s withdrawal of claims 101-112
from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.142(b) and (2) the
examiner’s objection to the drawings for not showing “the
manner in which the amounts of paint are specified and the
label showing the plurality of paints” (final rejection,
sentence spanning pages 2-3). Under 35 U.S.C. § 134 and 37
CFR § 1.191, appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences are taken from the decision of the primary
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007