Appeal No. 2002-0639 Page 8
Application No. 09/372,602
We find that Kozak, like Bingham, is directed to forming articles which are more easily
seen at night and in low light conditions when illuminated by headlights (Kozak at col. 1, ll. 13-
18). Kozak, also like Bingham, achieves this objective by using retroreflective microspheres or
beads (Kozak at col. 4, ll. 39-46). Kozak teaches arranging the retroreflective beads in patterns
indicative of symbols or alphanumeric characters to provide effectively bright and clear
indications of sign information (Kozak at 3, ll. 1-4 and 9, ll. 25-34). The sign may be adhesive
backed (Kozak at col. 4, ll. 35-38).
We conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
arranged the microspheres of Bingham in patterns indicative of symbols or alphanumeric
characters in order to communicate symbols or words in low light conditions as taught by Kozak.
Much of Appellants’ argument with regard to the rejection of claims 34 and 39 over
Bingham in view of Kozak focuses on the Examiner’s conclusion that the particular shape of the
communicative form carries no patentable weight (Brief at 8-9 and 27-33). We do not adopt the
reasoning of the Examiner in this regard. Whether the shape carries patentable weight is not
particularly relevant to the question of obviousness at hand. Claims 34 and 39 require that the
communicative form be a type of symbolism selected from the group of symbol, figure,
character, picture and arrow. Kozak provides evidence that it was known in the art to place
retroreflective beads into the shape of symbols and characters on signs. Together Bingham and
Kozak render such arrangements of beads on signs and fabrics obvious at the time the invention
was made.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007