Appeal 2007-1182
Application 10/020,136
Appellants contend that "the beauty of Essig is purely decorative and
fails to provide communication" (page 8 of Br., last para.). However, we
fully concur with the Examiner that a purely decorative item "can
communicate to the person looking at it [and that] [w]hat the item
communicates depends upon who is looking at it" (page 11 of Answer,
second para.). Indeed, we will go farther than the Examiner in saying that a
decorative item not only can communicate to the viewer but necessarily does
so. If nothing else, the decoration communicates the image of the decoration
itself, not to mention personal thoughts of the viewer associated with the
particular image. Also, as noted by the Examiner, Appellants have not
defined the claim term "communication" such that it has a meaning other
than the dictionary definition of "the exchange of thoughts, messages, or
information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior" (see page 11 of
Answer, first para.).
As noted above, Appellants have not presented separate substantive
arguments for the Examiner's separate rejections based on the additional
disclosures of Ross and Humason.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013