Appeal No. 2004-2299
Application No. 09/244,006
(Brief, pages 3-4), and the rejections are all based on the same
reference (Goodman), we discuss the rejections on appeal in this
same manner.
B. The Rejections under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Goodman teaches an article such as a
hairbrush (Supplemental Answer, page 3), a hand mirror
(Supplemental Answer, page 5), and jewelry (Supplemental Answer,
page 6) where a decorative three-dimensional applique is mounted or
affixed to the article. The examiner further finds that Goodman
teaches that the decorative applique may be in the form of a name
(Supplemental Answer, pages 3, 5 and 6).
In any rejection based on section 102(b), anticipation
requires that the prior art reference disclose, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, every limitation of the claim.3
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). As correctly argued by appellant, every claim on appeal
requires “a three-dimensional character face affixed to said second
surface” of the article (emphasis added), and Goodman does not
3With regard to the claims directed to a hairbrush, the
examiner finds that the limitation “the bristles attached to the
[said] first surface” would have been inherent to the hairbrush
of Goodman (Answer, page 4). Appellant agrees that bristles
attached to a surface are inherent in a hairbrush (Brief, page
5).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007