Appeal 2007-1928
Application 10/163,282
made of a material in a shape and size that has been selected by a customizer. Even
if each of the pieces of confetti has this same shape or size choice applied to it,
each individual piece has been customized in some way. Thus, each piece of
confetti is individually customizable.
On Page 22 of the Brief, Appellants argue that the rejections of
Claims 168, 169, 173, 139, 182, 188, 189, 193, 199, 201, 207-209, 213, 220, 222,
229, 230, 234, 241, 243, and 278 are improper in that the base claim from which
these claims depend has not also been rejected under §102. While slightly
irregular, we do not believe these rejections to be improper, and we will not
reverse them solely on this ground.
With the respect to the rejections which add teachings from Walker, Jaffe,
Viveiros, Logan, and Sterr ‘773 considered collectively with Guertin or Sterr ‘310
under § 103, we note Appellants have not provided separate arguments specifically
directed to these references or to the combined teachings of these references taken
with Guertin or Sterr ‘310. Therefore, we hold these claims to fall with the
rejections of the independent claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 134, 135, 157, 158, 177, 178, 197, 198, 218, 219,
239, 240, 258, 259, 276, and 277 as rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Guertin, the Examiner has taken official notice that images created by digital
computers are known in the art of printing and photography. We credit the official
notice of the Examiner and are in agreement that it would have been obvious to use
computer digital techniques for the art work in Guertin or for that matter the text,
icon, or graphic in Sterr ‘310. Appellants have not provided any evidence to rebut
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013