Appeal No. 2004-0087 Page 2
Application No. 09/677,705
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an infinity mirror display apparatus, and a
method for its manufacture, which allows a user to rapidly change out or add to a
selection of display objects used with mirrors able to cause an infinity mirror effect
(specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Singerman 1,880,026 Sept. 27, 1932
Mullis 5,787,618 Aug. 4, 1998
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 14 and 21 to 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mullis in view of Singerman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed March 26, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed January 10, 2003) and
reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed May 27, 2003) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007