Appeal No. 2006-1850
Application 10/039,103
McGrath teach the use of a metalized surface on the cube corner elements in the same
manner as appellants optionally teach the use of such a metalized surface in the portion of
page 8 of the specification as filed that we have quoted earlier in this opinion. This
approach does not detract from the obviousness of the claimed invention since each of the
claims on appeal is open ended because the preamble ends with the terms “comprising”
as well. As the examiner’s reasoning appears to include, the metal layer of McGrath is
part of the cube corner elements. Therefore, the examiner’s approach is consistent with
appellants’ own disclosed invention. Thus, there is no requirement for the removal of the
reflective coating in Phillips as argued in the middle of page 4 of the reply brief.
Correspondingly, appellants’ arguments at page 3 of the reply brief are misplaced
because there is no required boundary of the cube corner elements recited in the claims
on appeal. The examiner has consistently argued and the claims only broadly require that
this air interface be “at the cube corner elements.”
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting all claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007