Appeal No. 1999-0758
Application 08/784,180
explained, supra. Further, and again contrary to appellant’s point of view (brief, page
15), we found ample suggestion in the applied prior art for the modification of the Solon
teaching to include machine readable information. Appellant’s focus (brief, pages 13
and 14) upon Solon’s method of manufacture vis-a-vis appellant’s method of
manufacture is simply misplaced since at issue in this appeal is the patentability of an
article of manufacture, i.e., an identification bracelet, not a process or method of
manufacture.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the rejection based upon
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but has sustained the respective rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007