Appeal No. 2003-1200
Application No. 09/319,142
having a plurality of pyramid-shaped projections
arranged to correspondingly fit a respective one of
said pyramid-shaped depressions, whereby said
orientation of said vapor phase deposit layer upon said
plate-shaped support imparts decorative,
light-reflective qualities to said gemstone.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Gregory 2,521,846 Sep. 12, 1950
Lampert et al. (Lampert) 5,431,028 Jul. 11, 1995
Nassau et al. (Nassau) 5,882,786 Mar. 16, 1999
(filed Nov. 15, 1996)
Claims 16-18, 20, 22-27 and 29-31 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nassau in view of
Gregory, and claims 19, 21 and 28 are correspondingly rejected
over these references and further in view of Lampert.2
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejections.
2 On page 5 of the brief, the appellants state that appealed claims
16-31 “stand or fall together.” Consistent with this statement, the only
arguments advanced by the appellants against the separate rejection of
dependent claims 19, 21 and 28 relate to features recited in the sole
independent claim on appeal which is claim 16. Accordingly, in assessing the
merits of the rejections before us, we will focus on independent claim 16
since this the only claim which has been argued with any reasonable
specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987); Compare In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1382-83, 63 USPQ2d
1462, 1464-65 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007