Appeal No. 2005-0182
Application No. 09/783,392
Appellant further argues the various limitations of the
dependent claims (Brief, pages 7-9; Reply Brief, pages 2-4). As
noted by the examiner (Answer, page 4), these various limitations
are considered conventional or well known in the art. The use of
multicolor patterns, as recited in claims 4 and 9, would have been
suggested by the teaching in Cave of differently colored fibers
(page 2, ll. 15-19). It is the product which is being claimed, and
appellant has not established that the process by which it is
formed affects the product as claimed (i.e., silk printing in claim
6 and decalcomania in claim 7). See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
271, 191 USPQ 90, 103 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, the material used
to make the “printed face” would have been well within the ordinary
skill in the art, depending on the properties desired (see claims
2, 3 and 5).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
reference evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including
due consideration of appellant’s arguments, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cave or Miyamoto.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007