Appeal No. 2002-1972 Page 8
Application No. 09/394,722
duplicating the structure appearing on the obverse face of the earring would not, in our
view, result in the orientation of the elevated and depressed sections on the reverse
face being in accordance with the claims without the application of the hindsight
afforded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure.
It therefore is our opinion that the teachings of Philippe fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claims 1, 3, 4 and
5, and we will not sustain the Section 103 rejection.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, stands rejected as being unpatentable
over Philippe in view of Bruzas, the latter being cited for teaching the claimed circle in
each portion of the faces. Be that as it may, Bruzas fails to overcome the deficiencies
in Philippe pointed out above with regard to the rejection of claim 1. This being the
case, the rejection of claim 2 also is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007