Appeal No. 96-2393
Application 08/147,961
matter. Absent appellants' disclosure, we see no reasonable
teaching or suggestion in the references themselves which
would have fairly led one of ordinary skill in the art to (a)
use the light emitting fabric of Daniel as a small information
or display card similar to the card (30) in Lin, and (b) to so
size the light emitting fabric of Daniel and its light source
(17) that they would be able to fit into the small pocket on
the shoe of Lin. Since we have determined that the examiner's
conclusion of obviousness is based on a hindsight reconstruc-
tion using appellants' own disclosure as a blueprint to arrive
at the claimed subject matter, it follows that we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claims 63 and
78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or that of claims 64 through 66, 68,
69, 74 through 77 and 79 through 81 which depend therefrom.
Our review of Powell, relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting dependent claims 67 and 70 through 73 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, has revealed nothing which would supply the
missing teaching and/or suggestion lacking in the basic combi-
nation of Lin, Daniel and Rodgers as noted above. Accord-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007