Appeal No. 2001-2251 Page 3
Application No. 09/345,857
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Schulz in view of either Hay or Walker.
Claims 1-18 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sporing in view of either Hay or Walker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 101
The examiner has rejected claims 1-18 for several reasons focusing on the
“decorative printed matter” recited therein, which in the examiner’s view cause them not
to conform to 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, as is pointed out by the appellant on page 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007