Ex Parte Sloot - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2004-1917                                                          Page 2              
            Application No. 09/853,096                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The appellant's invention relates to self-wrapping decorative articles, and more           
            particularly to self-wrapping decorative articles for toys, safety toys and devices, and          
            for wrapping to legs, arms, posts, columns, cords or other similar structures, and                
            methods for manufacturing self-wrapping decorative articles.  Particularly, the                   
            appellant's invention relates to self-wrapping decorative articles made from materials,           
            which are capable of retroreflecting light, and having a protective layer, which prevents         
            retro-reflective capabilities of the materials from rapid deterioration as a result of            
            extensive use (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:                                                                              
            Richards                         2,502,535                       Apr. 4, 1950                     
            Anello                           3,410,023                       Nov. 12, 1968                    
            Kuroda                           3,730,814                       May 1, 1973                      
            Nestegard et al.                 5,962,108                       Oct. 5, 1999                     
            (Nestegard)                                                                                       


                   Claims 1 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over             
            Anello in view of Richards or Nestegard and further in view of Kuroda.                            









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007