Appeal No. 2005-2687
Application 10/322,194
pattern like that claimed, or why it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to form such a grain
pattern. The examiner has done neither. The examiner
erroneously reasons that because no method or apparatus is
recited in the appealed claims, “[t]he claims are so direct
solely to an article with no mention of any processing step
required to produce the article, thereby allowing for any
desired processing step able to produce the article to be
employed” (sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 of answer).
However, while the claims may embrace any process for making
the recited grain pattern, the examiner has pointed to no
process or apparatus in the prior art that would form the
claimed grain pattern. In essence, the examiner has ignored
the specific features of the articles defined in claims 12-15.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
Section 102 rejection of claims 21 and 22 is sustained, as is
the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 9-11 and 21-22.
However, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 12-15
is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007