Appeal No. 2003-0790 Page 7
Application No. 09/138,063
sheets can be installed at one time on a sign panel so that, when the outermost sheet
becomes defaced, it can be peeled off by a service person.
Bishopp is directed specifically to solving the problem of vandalism of street
signs and provides no teaching or suggestion that photographs mounted on postcard
units of the type taught by Hoebel are typically subject to such vandalism. Hoebel,
likewise, lacks any recognition that protection of the photographs from defacement is
necessary. From our perspective, the only suggestion for modifying Hoebel in the
manner proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who
first viewed appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We
are thus constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 21,
22, 35, 36 and 38-41 as being unpatentable over Hoebel in view of Bishopp.
Claims 3 and 6
The rejection of claims 3 and 6 relies in part on the same combination of Hoebel
and Bishopp that we found deficient for the reasons discussed above. In that the
teachings of Levy do not remedy this deficiency, it follows that we are also constrained
to reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 6 as being unpatentable over
Hoebel in view of Bishopp and Levy.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007