Appeal No. 2006-2560
Application No. 10/315,422
The examiner finds, on page 3 of the Final Office action dated August, 25, 2005
(hereinafter Office action), that Ranson teaches a book cover with a film (item 60)
laminated (adhered) to two boards (items 66a and 66b) and a spine (item 68). On page 4
of the Office action the examiner finds that Deschamps teaches a book cover with a
transparent sheet that has mirror image printing on it an adhesive on the side with the
mirror image printing. On page 4 of the Office action, the examiner also finds that one
would be motivated to use the transparent cover as discussed by Deschamps for the
purpose of providing a book cover wherein the indicia on the cover is protected by the
transparent cover. As discussed, supra, we concur with the examiner’s finding that one
would be so motivated to use a transparent material with mirror image printing such as
taught by Deschamps for the film/sheet of Ranson. Further, as discussed, supra, we do
not find that Ranson’s teaching is limited to opaque materials for film item 60. For the
forgoing reasons, appellant has not convinced us of any error in the examiner’s rejection
of claim 12 or the claims grouped with claim12. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 13, 16 through 24, 27 through 30 and 47 through 50
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ranson in view of Deschamps.
Appellant’s brief presents no arguments directed to the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, and 26 35 under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ranson
in view of Deschamps and Bilbie. Accordingly we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 4, 14, 14, 25 and 26 pro forma.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007