Appeal No. 2004-1206
Application No. 09/826,473
Claims 16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wolfe (Answer, page 4). Claims 16 and 18-25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gerstner
(id.). Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gerstner in view of Akao (Answer, page 6).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gerstner in view of Agostini (Answer, page 7). We affirm
all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b) over Wolfe
The examiner finds that Wolfe discloses a packaging
container having inner and outer surfaces which has been directly
printed in color using at least two transparent inks, of which no
more than two have been selected from the process primary colors
of cyan, magenta or yellow (Answer, page 4, citing col. 1, ll.
13-20, and col. 10, ll. 53-66).
Appellants argue that Wolfe is directed to printing on a
cylindrical beverage can, and does not teach or disclose a
“packaging container” as that term is defined in the
specification (Brief, page 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007