Appeal No. 1997-3650
Application No. 08/206,658
1 through 7 of Rajan since the appellants have not challenged the
propriety of this rejection.
OBVIOUSNESS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner’s rejection of claims 31 through 44, 46 and
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, is on different footing. This
rejection is premised upon that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in this art at the time of the invention to substitute
the toner of Ciccarelli et al. in the process of Kubit;
use printing apparatuses as taught by 3M in the process
of Kubit; and to laminate the film of Kubit on a
retroreflective base within a weather resistant package.
[See answer, page 7.]
The examiner, however, has not identified any suggestion or
motivation in the applied prior art references that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to laminate the transparency
of the type3 described in Kubit on the retroreflective base
described in Bailey. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1356, 47
USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1599-00 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As discussed in
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227
USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985), it is the prior art itself, and
3The examiner points to no evidence that the transparency of
the type described in Kubit can be used as a weather resistant
cover or a sign for a retroreflective material.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007