Appeal No. 2004-1029
Application No. 09/747,529
choose various printed designs, as well as choose where to place
the printed image on the Hobson product . . ." (answer, pages 3-
4), so as to result in a towel or textile like that claimed by
appellant. Since neither the applied references nor the examiner
provides an adequate factual basis to establish that the towel of
claim 21 on appeal or the textile product of appellant's claim 29
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention, it follows that we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
In addition, we note that the examiner's rejection of claims
22 through 28 and 30 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
the combination of Hobson and Carpenter, which claims
respectively depend from independent claims 21 and 29, will
likewise not be sustained.
Since we have determined that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
claimed subject matter before us on appeal, we find it
unnecessary to comment on appellant's evidence of secondary
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007