Appeal No. 2003-1390
Application No. 08/989,342
three-dimensional as opposed to two-dimensional designs and to
have modified the template of Hupp to include a design other than
for brickwork or stonework. Accordingly, the rejections of claim
29 as unpatentable over Hinkes, Hupp or Lopez are reversed.
However, as appellant has failed to dispute the examiner’s
findings regarding the obviousness of forming a template made of
fiberboard, wooden fiberboard or blown resin, and having
determined that Nakanishi anticipates claim 1 from which claim 29
depends, we are constrained to affirm the rejection of claim 29
as unpatentable over Nakanishi.
In sum, the rejection of claims 1 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Nakanishi and the rejection of claim 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakanishi are
affirmed. The remaining rejections are reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007