Appeal 2007-1928
Application 10/163,282
We also affirm the rejections of the claims rejected under § 102 as
anticipated by Sterr ‘310. We agree with the Appellants that Sterr teaches
specialty foam confetti. We further agree that Sterr teaches that a logo or message
may be imprinted on the surface of the foam. We note that the foam confetti of
Sterr ‘310 is three-dimensional. Appellants argue that Sterr does not teach that
individual pieces of confetti are bits of material that are individually customizable.
Customized as used by Appellants refer to selecting material, selecting the shape,
or the size of the material, in addition to providing indicia on the material. It is
clear that Sterr selects a material. He has a preferred foam. It is further clear that
he selects the shape and size of the material, as many shapes are illustrated in the
patent and presumably many shapes can be used at a single celebration. With
respect to the Appellants’ non-customizable arguments, found on page 20 of the
Brief, we note that Sterr cuts foam shapes from a stack of rectangular sheets of
foam. It may well be that the flashing or excess material could be consider as non-
customizable bits of material. Furthermore, inasmuch as Appellants’ definition of
image includes text, graphics, or icon, the pieces of confetti of Sterr are seen to
contain individually customizable images.
Appellants argue that the foam confetti of Sterr is not individually
customizable. Reply at 10. Even if we were to consider the claims as directed to
customized confetti, rather than to mere customizable bits of material, the import
of this argument is that each of Appellants’ bits of material are different from one
another. Such a feature has not been claimed. In our view, the confetti of Sterr is
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013