Appeal No. 2002-0639 Page 7
Application No. 09/372,602
Neither Ochi, the Hedblom references nor Anders, as applied by the Examiner, overcome
the deficiency discussed above. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the rejections over these references as applied to
claims 1-6, 9-21, 23-28, 35-38, and 40.
However, we come to a different conclusion with respect to Kozak as this reference does
overcome the deficiency of Bingham. The Examiner used Kozak in combination with Bingham
to reject claims 34 and 39.
We find that Bingham, as discussed above, is directed to retroreflective sheets containing
retroreflective microspheres embedded in a binder containing reflective pigments and which may
also contain fluorescent pigments (Bingham at col. 2, ll. 44-56 and 6, ll. 19-20). The sheet
further comprises a transfer adhesive on its backside in accordance with the requirements of
claim 1, upon which claim 34 depends (Bingham at col. 2, ll. 64-67). Bingham discloses
arranging the microspheres onto a carrier by transfer techniques such as printing and screening
(Bingham at col. 4, ll. 3-7), well known techniques for forming symbols and characters on
substrates. For instance, the characters on this paper are formed by printing. While Bingham
mostly focuses on using the end product retroreflective sheet on fabrics, Bingham also suggests
its use in retroreflective signs (Bingham at col. 1, ll. 6-9). Bingham indicates that reflective and
retroreflective sheeting and fabrics have been conventionally proposed as a means to provide
greater visibility to pedestrians or cyclists traveling along streets or highways at nighttime
(Bingham at col. 1, ll. 44-48).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007