Appeal No. 2005-1016
Application No. 10/326,780
line 8). Hence, since we find that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in th art to apply a reflective decal
to the locking plate, it follows that we find that it would have
been obvious to use the known liquid reflectorized material as an
alternative to the use of the decal. Lester provides the
requisite teaching of providing reflective material to the
rotating part of a vehicle to warn other vehicles or pedestrians
of its presence. Based on the Lester disclosure, we perceive
nothing unobvious in applying any known reflective material to
the rotating parts of any vehicle, including a railway car.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed, and we have
introduced new grounds of rejection for claims 11-13.
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 CFR § 41.52(a)(1)
provides "[a]ppellant may file a single request for rehearing
within two months from the date of the original decision of the
Board."
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection(s) of one
or more claims, this opinion contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004,
69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office
21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007