Appeal 2007-1593
Application 10/462,972
Consequently, Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate the Examiner
erred in determining that such a modification would have been obvious.
Rejection (6) is sustained as to claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 21.
With respect to rejection (6) as to claim 23, Appellant further argues
that “[t]he Examiner has not set forth with the required particularity how the
elements of the method claim are met by the combination of [the applied
references]” (Appeal Br. 12-13). The Examiner has explained how the
elements of the method step are met (Answer 12) and Appellant has not
specifically challenged that position. Appellant thus has failed to
demonstrate Examiner error in rejection (6) as applied to claim 23. The
rejection is sustained.
Finally, our discussion above with respect to rejection (5) applies
likewise to rejection (7). Specifically, the improvement of texturing for
aesthetic purposes is technology-independent and would similarly improve a
business card holder, such as the one disclosed by Masoud. Rejection (7) is
sustained.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013