Appeal No. 2005-2119
Application No. 10/103,063
and Appellant in support of their respective positions. This review leads us
to conclude that the Examiner’s § 102 rejection and the § 103 rejections
are not well founded. Our reasons follow.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant concerning the above-noted rejections, we
refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
OPINION
Appellant’s invention generally relates to a system for matching
paint colors on different vehicle body components that are individually
painted at different locations prior to being assembled as part of one
vehicle. (Brief, p. 2). Appellant further discloses that the invention provides
an arrangement for monitoring colors and adjusting paint formulations as
needed to ensure achieving a satisfactory end product. (Brief, p. 2).
Claims 1 and 14, as presented in the Brief, are reproduced below:
1. A system for painting various portions of a vehicle exterior,
comprising:
a first sensor that provides an indication of a color of paint
applied to a first portion of the vehicle in a first paint
application station;
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007