Appeal No. 2005-0866
Application No. 09/971,739
Appellant also contends that the void of Wohl is not a
decorative one. However, Wohl specifically discloses that the
apertures 104 and 106 "can have a variety of shapes, such as
polygonal, star shaped, oval or the like" (column 4, lines 33-
34). Consequently, it cannot be gainsaid that Wohl describes a
decorative void in the outer shell.
As for the requirement in claim 1 that the void be formed by
inserting an object into the composition and removing it after at
least partially curing the composition, we fully concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to form the void by either introducing the
curable composition between inner and outer molds, as disclosed
by Wohl, or by inserting the inner mold in the composition
contained by the outer mold, as presently claimed. In our view,
either option would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
As can be seen by our analysis above, we find Morrison
unnecessary for the conclusion of obviousness. Also, we note
that appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
Concerning the examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 15, 17
and 20, it should be apparent from our above discussion that we
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007