Appeal 2006-3282
Application 09/683,353
marking crayon used in industry. We find that one skilled in the
art at the time of the invention who would search for a means
for controlling movement of the temperature indicating means
of OMEGA® would look to the old teaching of Peterson and
combine them. Thus we find that the elements of claim 17
would be obvious over the cited references.
ANALYSIS
The elements of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16 and 20 are present in the
prior art, as demonstrated by the references OMEGA®, Kossnar, Kirk and
Aronson, in a manner to anticipate the claims as presented.
Claim 17 is rendered obvious over the prior art OMEGA® in view of
Peterson.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
The following new rejection of claim 20 is entered under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 41.50 (b).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) for being anticipated
by Kossnar. Figure 2 of Kossnar indicates elements 20a and 20b which are
longitudinal members with curved ends integrally molded therein, as
claimed.
OTHER ISSUES
Examiner is reminded that USPTO procedures require that rejections
be fully repeated in the Examiner’s Answer, and that the Board not be
referenced to other actions (e.g. Final Rejections) in the file. See MPEP
1207.02. In the interest of reasonable dispatch of this appeal the procedure
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013