Appeal No. 2000-0873
Application No. 08/975,983
DePauw’s teaching of providing in its color mixing kit a
mixing chart having a color scale and indicia thereon to
facilitate mixing colors, it would have been further obvious
to provide item (3) in Milne’s kit to achieve DePauw’s purpose
of facilitating the mixing of colors. As to item (4), as is
apparent from our reproduction of appellant’s arguments in
favor of the patentability of the claims of this grouping,
appellant has not argued item (4) with any reasonable degree
of specificity as a basis of distinction over the applied
prior art. In any event, we are in accord with the examiner’s
bottom line determination that it would have been obvious to
provide item (4) in a mural painting kit since, from our
perspective, it would have been obvious to provide the paint
tubes 36 of Milne with indicia as to their manufacturer (e.g.,
brand name), which indicia would satisfy the “third tangible
medium” limitation of claim 94 as broadly claimed.
For these reasons, we shall sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 94 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view
22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007