Appeal No. 2006-2187
Application No. 10/642,413
argument to the single step process to be well supported in the claim
language and does not distinguish the claimed invention. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 3 and 14.
With respect to dependent claims 1, 3-10, and 15, Appellant argues
that none of the references disclose a structure that eliminates the multi-step
manufacturing process of the prior art as disclosed by Appellant. As
discussed above, we do not find the argument to the single step process or
elimination of multi-step processes to be well supported in the claim
language, and we find that this argument does not distinguish the claimed
invention. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 1, 3-10, and 15.
Appellant additionally subdivides the above grouping into claims 4,
7, 8, and 15, and we select dependent claim 7 as representative. We find that
Owens teaches an appliqué which we find to be above the surface of the
background surface and also agree with the Examiner that the molding of
Biche would have suggested that a separate step of molding could be used
with Owens to apply information to the information plaque. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 4, 7, 8, and 15.
Appellant additionally subdivides the above grouping into three
additional groupings of claims 5 and 9; claims 6 and 10; and claims 11 and
16. Appellant presents the same argument as above that the references do
not disclose the claimed structure and process of manufacturing (Br. 26-27).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013