Appeal No. 2006-1946
Application No. 10/437,580
describe an epoxy basecoat (brief, page 14). The examiner
responds that the examiner has asserted that some lacquers were
known in the art to be made of epoxies and that the appellant has
not challenged that assertion (answer, page 9). Because the
examiner’s finding is reasonable and has not been challenged by
the appellant, we accept it as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326
F.2d 424, 425 n.3, 140 USPQ 235, 236 n.3 (CCPA 1964).
The appellant’s only other argument with respect to Small is
that it does not cure the deficiency in Douglas and Kennedy with
respect to the motivation to apply a thermochromic material to a
hockey puck (brief, page 14). As discussed above, that
deficiency does not exist.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 5, 10,
17-19, 21, 24-29 and 31-34 over Kennedy in view of Douglas,
claims 4, 8, 20 and 22 over Kennedy in view of Douglas and Small,
claims 12 and 13 over Kennedy in view of Douglas and Chinn, and
claims 14-16 over Kennedy in view of Douglas and Grupp, are
affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013