Appeal No. 2006-2560
Application No. 10/315,422
We find that Deschamps’ discussion of books, back of books, catalogs, brochures,
mechanical binders for loose-leaf paper as having similar construction suggests that one
skilled in the art would apply teachings for covering one type of book, to covers for other
types of books. Thus, we find that Deschamps’ teachings regarding using a transparent
sheet as part of the book cover to be combinable with Ranson’s book cover.
Appellant argues, on page 15 and 16 of the brief, that the examiner’s rejection is
in error as the coversheet in Ranson overlays the support boards and contains art work.
As such, appellant asserts that Ranson’s coversheet is opaque. Further, on pages 16 and
17 of the brief, appellant argues that, Deschamps teaches a transparent sheet added to
prior art construction, not replacing portions of the prior art construction. Appellant
asserts that one skilled in the art would not consider Ranson’s opaque coversheet to be
interchangeable with Deschamps’ transparent coversheet which provides no strength or
durability.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments. Initially we note that appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. As discussed infra, we hold
that the scope of the claims is broad enough to include applying a transparent coversheet
over the coversheet of Ranson (i.e., the claims do not preclude a layer between the
coversheet and the frontpiece, backpiece and spine). Nonetheless, we find that one
skilled in the art, viewing both references would use the transparent cover sheet, with
wrong reading indicia, of Deschamps as the coversheet in Ranson’s book cover. As also
discussed supra, we do not find that Ranson’s teaching is limited to opaque coversheets
and leaves open the use of transparent coversheets. As discussed supra, Deschamps
teaches transparent coversheets have advantages in durability. Further Deschamps
teaches that printing information in a wrong reading manner (so that when the coversheet
is applied to a book cover the printing is under the transparent sheet) has the advantage of
protecting the printing. Thus, appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
examiner’s rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007