Appeal No. 98-0361
Application 08/394,725
Given the substantial differences between the rim/bill
constructions disclosed by the two references, it is not
evident how or why Simon's teaching of ornamentation having
first and second parts which fully conform to or follow the
contour of the crown and rim/bill, respectively, such that the
second part is a unitary continuation of the first part would
have suggested modifying the Kellin hat so as to arrive at the
headwear piece recited in claims 1 and 9. In this regard,
neither reference discloses ornamentation having the three-
dimensional visual effect required by the claims. In this
light, it is apparent that the examiner has engaged in an
impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the invention set
forth in claims 1 and 9 by using these claims as a blueprint
to selectively pick and choose from among isolated elements in
the prior art. Rife, applied to support the rejection of
dependent claims 12 and 13, does not cure this fundamental
flaw in the Kellin-Simon combination.
Thus, the prior art evidence relied upon by the examiner
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter recited in independent claims 1
and 9, and in claims 2 through 8 and 10 through 24 which
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007