Appeal No. 2003-0790 Page 2
Application No. 09/138,063
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a kit for making small disposable signs
(specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Levy 3,686,783 Aug. 29, 1972
Bishopp et al. (Bishopp) 4,090,464 May 23, 1978
Hoebel 4,947,566 Aug. 14, 1990
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 14 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoebel.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 21, 22, 35, 36 and 38-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoebel in view of Bishopp.
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hoebel in view of Bishopp and Levy.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 21) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 20) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007