Appeal No. 2006-1798
Application No. 09/966,413
Appellant asserts (reply brief, page 6) that the backing sheet is not suggested in
the prior art because placing an adhesive backing on the sheet facilitates
manufacture as there is no separate step of applying the adhesive to the sheet or
candle bottom and holding them together.
From our review of the record, we are in agreement with the examiner that
the disclosure of using adhesives by Pappas would have suggested to an artisan
that the sheet have an adhesive backing. As correctly noted by the examiner,
Pappas is silent as to how the plate can be mounted or attached. From the nature of
the problem to be solved, e.g., attaching a sheet or plate to a surface, and the
disclosure of Pappas of using adhesive to attach the pedestal to a container, we find
that that artisan would have been motivated to use an adhesive backing on the sheet
for attachment to the candle or the candle and wick holder. From all of the above,
we are not persuaded of any error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pappas. The rejection of
claim 4 is sustained.
We turn next to the rejections of claims 14, 15, and 18-22. The examiner
additionally relies upon Gentry, Pietruch, Hamblet, and Chambers in the rejections
of these claims (see final rejection, pages 4-6). From our review of the record, and
the lack of any arguments presented by appellant with respect to these claims, we
sustain the rejections of claims 14, 15, and 18-22 for the reasons advanced by the
examiner in the final rejection.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013