Appeal No. 2004-1992
Application No. 10/223,982
The references relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Ruff 5,589,238 Dec. 31, 1996
Ramirez 6,237,819 May 29, 2001
Lopata et al. (Lopata) 6,360,413 Mar. 26, 2002
Claims 1, 3-34 and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramirez in view of Ruff.
Claims 2, 35 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ramirez in view of Ruff, and further
in view of Lopata.
Attention is directed to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15) for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner regarding these
rejections.
Discussion
With reference to appellants’ drawing figures, each of the
independent claims on appeal, in one form or another, calls for a
decorative bow (10) comprising a plurality of ribbon strands (12)
and at least one die cut piece (16) comprising a spine (18) and
at least one design artifact (20) extending from the spine.
Ramirez, the examiner’s primary reference in each of the
rejections, pertains to a decorative bow comprising a plurality
of loosely arranged, zigzag ribbon-like strands 12. The examiner
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007