Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
of air-assisted spraying, airless spraying, brushing, and decal transfer. The
coated surface is subjected to firing after the application of the reflective-
coating mixture.
Appealed claims 1-5 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 2, 4-6, and 7 of
US Patent No. 6,720,034 to Skoog; claims 1-9 and 16-18 also stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 6,720,034 in view of Rigney. In addition,
the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-6, and 8 over Nagaraj in view of Klabunde, Kirk-Othmer
and Rigney;
(b) claim 7 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Vakil;
(c) claim 9 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Eppler;
(d) claim 10 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Tecle;
(e) claims 11-13 over the stated combination of references further in
view of Houshiyun;
(f) claims 14 and 15 over the stated combination of references further
in view of Skoog ‘791; and,
(g) claims 16-22 over the stated combination of references further in
view of Demaray.
With respect to the double patenting rejections and the § 103 rejection
of claims 1-6 and 8, Appellants do not set forth an argument that is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013