Appeal No. 2006-1513 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/068,574
secured to the decoy using an adhesive. Appellants assert
(brief, page 5) that “the rejection fails because the Examiner
has not cited any reference which would teach or suggest non-
adhesively incorporating the photograph containing the animal
features into the main body.” These two prior art references,
located by the Board, teach attaching pictures or photographs to
objects such as curios or propane tanks, through the use of non-
adhesive processes (see col. 2, line 37; col. 3, lines 15-17, and
col. 1, lines 42-45 of Cromett and col. 3, lines 12 and 13; col.
4, lines 7 and 8, and col. 1, lines 66 and 67 of Culp). From the
disclosures of Cromett and Culp, we find that an artisan would
have found it obvious to have secured the photographs of Tryon to
the decoy without the use of adhesives as an obvious substitution
of equivalent means for connecting the photograph to the decoy.
We add that because we are primarily a Board of review, that
we have only applied the prior art to independent claim 21. We
leave it to the examiner to determine whether this prior art
and/or other prior art should be applied to any or all of the
other claims whose rejection has been reversed in this decision
on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007