Appeal 2007-1478
Application 10/359,861
(Answer 7). Thus, the issues before us are: a) whether the claims are limited
to illuminating a reflective license plate; and b) whether Rice teaches
“directly” illuminating the license plate, as recited in the claims. We note
that Appellant has not provided arguments separately addressing the
limitations of claims 2 and 3. However, as Appellant is pro se and would
not be expected to be as familiar with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
as a registered patent attorney or agent, we elect not to group claims 2 and 3
together under § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) and will address claims 2 and 3 separately.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the Examiner has established the following facts based
upon a preponderance of the evidence:
1) Rice teaches an illuminated vehicle display device which can be
mounted on a front bumper of a vehicle. Col. 3, ll. 26-30, 52-57;
col. 5, l. 59 to col. 6, l. 5. This illuminated display device can be used
“in lieu of a license plate” mounted on the bumper. Col. 5, ll. 59-67
2) Rice’s illuminated display consists of two lighting elements 29
supported by a backing assembly 12. See Fig. 2.
3) The display of Rice includes illuminatable indicia 81, which can
include numbers and letters formed by non-opaque portions of a
translucent or transparent display panel 80 of which the non-indicia
portions are covered with opaque paint 82. Col. 4, ll. 33-38. The
indicia are in front of the lighting elements and the light from the
3 By “reflectorized,” we assume Appellant and the Examiner mean
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013