Appeal No. 2005-2119
Application No. 10/103,063
mixed and applied to the object. Subsequently, Corrigan discloses the
painted object is scanned and data may be transmitted back to the
central computer for comparison. (Paragraph bridging columns 11 and
12). It appears that the remote terminal of Corrigan functions the same
as the first and second sensors of the present invention. As such, the
Corrigan reference does not discloses the same invention as described
by the present claims within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102.3
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not established
a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to the subject matter of
claims 1-4, 14-17 and 20-23.
The Examiner utilized additional references along with Corrigan to
reject the subject matter of claims 5, 6, 18 and 19. These additional
references were not applied by the Examiner to address the differences
from the Corrigan invention and the claimed invention identified above.
Thus, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
the remote terminal may function as the central computer.
3 While the color formulation determined by the central computer may be transmitted
to a different remote terminal as suggested by the Examiner, there is no indication that
this is necessarily the process disclosed by Corrigan.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007