Appeal No. 2002-0639 Page 9
Application No. 09/372,602
Appellants argue that Kozak does not teach or suggest the claimed “communicative
form” whereby both the contrastingly defined “communicative form” and the surrounding area
are both visibly enhanced” (Brief at 33). However, Appellants point to no specific claim
language that requires that the surrounding area be visibly enhanced. We find no such limitation.
Moreover, Kozak describes affixing the beads onto signs painted as is conventional in the art
with reflective paint (Kozak at col. 9, l. 62 to col. 10, l. 11). As the background is covered with
reflective paint, it is visibly enhanced.
Appellants also argue that Bingham and Kozak are not properly combinable references
because “there must be motivation present within the references themselves to be combined in
the manner proposed.” (Brief at 25). While it is true that a proper suggestion to combine may
flow from the prior art references themselves, it is also true that the suggestion may also flow
from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the
problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,
1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here the suggestion flows naturally from the
teachings of the references and from the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. Bingham
suggests the use of the sheet in signs. As acknowledged by Appellants, “[s]ignage, by definition,
entails symbolism or conveys information.” (Brief at 31). At the time of the invention, it was
also an ordinary everyday occurrence to see people walking down the street wearing fabrics with
symbols and characters printed thereon meant to communicate. Kozak describes a way of
making symbols and characters on signs brighter by placing the microspheres in the pattern of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007