Appeal 2007-2111
Application 09/921,204
1 would otherwise be blank. Aside from the fact that Ford teaches this feature,
2 we fail to see how placing an advertisement in an area that would otherwise
3 be blank would distinguish a claim from the prior art. An artisan would be
4 aware to place advertisements wherever desired, including both areas that
5 would have had other indicia as well as areas that would have otherwise had
6 no other indicia.
7 From all of the above, we are not convinced of any error on the part of
8 the Examiner in rejecting claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
9 unpatentable over Kapp in view of Zimmerman.
10
11 CONCLUSION OF LAW
12 On the record before us, Appellant has failed to establish error on the
13 part of the Examiner in rejecting claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
14 as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Zimmerman and Jenniches, and
15 has failed to show error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 11
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapp in view of
17 Zimmerman. The rejection of claim 1 and the rejections of claim 11 under
18 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are sustained.
19
20 DECISION AND ORDER
21 The Examiner's decision to claims 1 and 11 is affirmed.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013