Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
basis to support the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
applied prior art references in a manner which would have
resulted in specifying amounts needed for each of the
plurality of paints of the mural. The mere fact that the
prior art could be so modified would not have made the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification (see In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Here, the
references applied by the examiner contains no such
suggestion.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 44-47, 55-63 and
69-72 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Milne and
DePauw.
Rejections (c) and (d)
Claim 48 stands rejected as being unpatentable further in
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007