Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
to a kit wherein “a third tangible medium is provided which
specifies amounts needed for each of the plurality of paints
of the mural.” The other method and article claims in this
grouping include similar claim language. In rejecting the
claims of this grouping as being unpatentable over Mayer in
view of Milne and DePauw, the examiner has advanced several
theories as to why this claim recitation does not patentably
distinguish over the applied prior art.
First, it appears to be the examiner’s view (final
rejection, pages 5-6) that the disclosure in DePauw of mixing
specified proportions of primary colors and black and white to
create secondary colors is sufficient to meet this limitation.
However, specifying the proportion of a color to be mixed to
achieve another color, as taught by DePauw, relates to the
relationship between quantities such that if the one color
varies then the others vary in an amount dependent on the
first, whereas the claims call for specifying the amounts
(i.e., total quantities) needed for each of the plurality of
paints of the mural. Since specifying proportions of colors
to be used is not the same as specifying amounts of paints to
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007