Ex Parte Bell - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0866                                                        
          Application No. 09/971,739                                                  

               15. An item with a decorative void, comprising:                        
               a first quantity of a composition, wherein said composition            
          defines a decorative void created by the removal of an at-least-            
          partially-embedded object from said first quantity of                       
          composition.                                                                
               In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies           
          upon the following references:                                              
          Wohl et al. (Wohl)              5,597,300           Jan. 28, 1997           
          Morrison et al. (Morrison)      WO 97/08282         Mar.  6, 1997           
               Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an item with a            
          decorative void and its method of preparation.  The method                  
          entails inserting an object into a composition within a mold,               
          partially curing the composition and then removing the object to            
          form the void.  Examples of such items are air fresheners and               
          candles.                                                                    
               Appealed claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as being unpatentable over Morrison in combination with Wohl.               
          Claims 15, 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as             
          being anticipated by Wohl.  In addition, claims 16, 18 and 19               
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable               
          over Wohl in combination with Morrison.                                     
               We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions                   
          advanced by appellant and the examiner.  In so doing, we find               


                                         -2-                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007