Appeal No. 2003-1390
Application No. 08/989,342
three-dimensional designs. Accordingly, the rejections of claims
18-21 based on Hinkes or Lopez in view of Budden are reversed.
Turning to the rejection based on Nakanishi in view of
Budden, as pointed out by appellant, Budden teaches a sheet
having pieces 8 of a required design cut therefrom by cuts 9
extending through the layers 2, 3 and 4 which make up the sheet 1
as well as through the adhesive coating 5. Budden, col. 1, lines
57-60. Budden does not disclose or suggest a template which
includes accommodating apertures. See appeal brief, page 23.
The examiner has failed to establish why one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to
have modified the guide holes 36 (accommodating apertures) of
Nakanishi to be in the form of scored sections that can be pushed
from the template in view of Budden’s disclosure which relates to
precutting the design itself.
The rejection of claims 18-21 based on Nakanishi in view of
Budden is reversed.
6. Rejection of claims 6-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hupp in view of Budden.
Budden relates to a stencil for use when painting designs on
surfaces such as walls, applying lettering to signboards or
producing pictures on paper or other material. Thus, Budden
relates to a two-dimensional, as opposed to a three-dimensional,
design. As pointed out above in connection with rejection 4,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007