Ex Parte Springett et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0620                                                        
          Application 10/010,202                                                      

          colored material, both layers being formed using a digitally                
          controlled color printer.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                         
               1.   A transfer sheet, including:                                      
               a carrier sheet;                                                       
               a colored pattern printed on a surface of said carrier sheet           
          using at least one digitally controlled color printer; and                  
               a layer of white colored material printed over at least the            
          colored pattern using the digitally controlled color printer.               
                                    THE REFERENCE                                     
          Franke                     WO 97/21867              Jun. 19, 1997           
               (PCT application)                                                      
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franke.                                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               We affirm the aforementioned rejection.                                
               The appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall              
          together (brief, page 5).  The appellants, however, merely set              
          forth the content of the claims and where support therefor is               
          found in the specification (brief, pages 6-8).  The appellants do           
          not separately argue the patentability of the inventions in the             
          claims.  We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e.,              
          claim 1.  See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d               

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007