Appeal No. 2006-2187
Application No. 10/642,413
express limitations in the claim language and Appellant has not identified
how the specification defines or limits the interpretations of the claim
limitations.
Appellant argues that the invention overcomes a problem in the prior
art and that the present invention provides “a structure that could be formed
in a single step.” (Reply Br. at 8). The Examiner has relied upon the
teachings of Owens at column 3, lines 55-56 which indicates that the raised
portion of the raised planar informative plaque member 26 and that etching
and appliqués are both commonly used methods for applying information.
(Answer at page 5). We agree with the Examiner’s analysis and reasoning
and do not find that Appellant has shown error therein. We agree with the
Examiner that if etched, the surface of the information would be below the
remainder of the background surface and if an appliqué were applied to the
surface then the final “formed” product would have the design surface raised
above the background surface.
Appellant argues that Owen’s two-step member is the very problem
that Appellant’s invention seeks to solve (Br. 19 et seq.). With that said, it is
the invention as recited in the claim language which we must limit our
review to. This argument emphasizes the difficulty which we had in this
appeal and the prior appeal that Appellant tries to distinguish a physical
article by the manner in which it was made. While this can be done, it is the
structural limitations which must distinguish the article. The arguments to
the mechanical advantages, the two step process, and the problem of
transparent plastics are not expressly set forth in the claim language and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013