Appeal No. 2007-0739
Application No. 11/043,655
Claim 4 is drawn to the chairmat as in claim 1, “wherein said
decorative material is disposed on a portion of said substrate to form a
substrate border without decorative material around said substrate.”
Appellant argues “[a]lthough alternative pattern is mentioned in Col.
4, lines 30-33, no teaching or suggestion is provided for a border” (Br. 6).
Appellant’s argument is not convincing. A decorative border is a well
known element of design, and as Sawka teaches that an almost limitless
variety of decorative effects may be achieved (col. 8, l. 62-col. 8, l. 4), it
would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to use a decorative border
as the decorative effect in the multilayer film of Sawka, and the rejection is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Richard M. Lebovitz )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Nancy J. Linck )
Administrative Patent Judge )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013