Appeal No. 2002-0639 Page 3
Application No. 09/372,602
said differing is visually appreciable so that at least two said matrix sections contrastingly
define at least one communicative form.
39. A visually enhanced article as in claim 10, wherein said at least one communicative
form includes at least one type of symbolism selected from the group consisting of symbol,
figure, character, picture and arrow.
THE EVIDENCE
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Bingham4,763,985Aug. 16, 1988
Hedblom (Hedblom ‘221) 5,227,221 Jul. 13, 1993
Hedblom et al. (Hedblom ‘746) 5,683,746 Nov. 4, 1997
Ochi et al. (Ochi) 5,812,316 Sep. 22, 1998
Kozak et al. (Kozak) 5,873,187 Feb. 23, 1999
Anders 5,874,491 Feb. 23, 1999
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 9-16, 18, 19, 23, 26, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bingham.
2. Claims 1-5, 9-16, 18, 19, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bingham in view of Ochi.
3. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-16, 18-20, 23, 24, 26, 35, 36, 38, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007