Appeal No. 2006-2560
Application No. 10/315,422
Further on pages 24 through 25 of the brief, appellant argues that one skilled in
the art would not be motivated to combine the references as the addition of a transparent
sheet would increase the cost of Ranson’s cover, the sheet is not intended to be formed
into a flat back cover and the Ranson cover, laminated with a transparent sheet, would
not be more durable than the cover of Ranson alone.
Appellant’s arguments, on pages 22 through 26 of the brief, do not persuade us of
error in the examiner’s rejection. As stated, supra, we do not find that Ranson is limited
to opaque cover sheets, and we find that Deschamps provides motivation to use a
transparent cover sheet. Further, with regard to cost and durability, we do not find any
evidence to support a finding that the transparency of the material used in Ranson has a
negative impact on price or durability. Further, given Deschamps’ statement regarding
laminating with a transparent sheet adding little cost in the situation where the
transparent sheet is in addition to an existing sheet, we do not find that the cost would
deter one from obtaining the benefit of protecting the printing/artwork on the book cover.
Additionally, as stated supra we find the suggestion in Deschamps that the transparent
sheet could be applied to covers of may types of books.
For the forgoing reasons, appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
combining Ranson and Deschamps in the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 26 of the brief, appellant argues that “Claim 1 recites a book cover
comprising transparent sheet having indicia applied to the second surface thereof, with an
adhesive layer applied thereof and the frontpiece, spine piece and backpiece adhered to
the second surface of the transparent sheet.” Further, appellant states:
Conversely, in Ranson, the board pieces are adhered to the second surface of a
nonprinted, opaque cover sheet (60). Therefore, if one skilled in the art added a
transparent sheet of the type disclosed by the '576 patent over the exterior surface
of the opaque cover sheet (60), such a combination would not result in a book
cover comprising a transparent sheet having printing on the second surface
thereof and including front cover, spine and rear cover board pieces adhered to
the second surface thereof. Accordingly, Appellant asserts that it is clear that
these elements are not taught or suggested by the references relied upon by the
Examiner in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007