Appeal No. 2002-1313 Page 9
Application No. 09/282,590
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Lau-Kee
cures the deficiency of Seidl. Absent a teaching or suggestion of changing the
appearance of a 3D object by merely applying a modifier thereto, the examiner fails to
present a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 3, 11-15, and 17.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 16, and 18-20 under § 102(e) and
the rejection of claims 3, 11-15, and 17 under § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007