Appeal No. 96-2724
Application 08/343,201
motivation found in the applied reference. Like appellant, we
believe that the examiner's modification of Swartz in the
specific manner posited in the final rejection and answer is
based on the hindsight benefit of appellant's own teachings and
not on anything fairly suggested by the reference itself.
Moreover, as
appellant has urged, the critical nature of the fluid filled
chambers to the invention in Swartz clearly dictates against any
such removal, and if the fluid were removed from the chambers,
the very nature of the display apparatus therein would be altered
to the extent that such display apparatus would not be capable
of performing the same functions as before. Thus, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Swartz.
Turning to the examiner's rejections of claims 6 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we share appellant's view concerning the
obviousness of using radioactive spheres (as in Webb) in the
footwear of Swartz, and appellant's view concerning the
examiner's proposed downsizing of the picture in either Sigoloff
or Adams, given the express disclosure in each of these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007