Appeal No. 2004-0366 Page 16
Application No. 09/848,044
23). In that regard, Ferguson's fastener is not a weight which applies tension to the
wire A.
The examiner's position (answer, pp. 6-7 and 20) with respect to claim 21 is that
the claimed sign configured such that the wind primarily spills around "said first and
second edges, whereby the wind tends to rotate said sign about said axis and said at
least one cable segment tends to constrain such rotational motion" is readable on
Ferguson's sign B. We do not agree. As set forth above, the appellants' sign is
configured to cause the wind to primarily spill off of the vertical edges 64a and 64b of
the sign faces 50a and 50b. The examiner's position that Ferguson's sign B is
inherently configured as claimed is sheer speculation.
Since the teachings of Steenhoudt or Barnes would not have made it obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Ferguson to make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Ferguson discussed above
regarding claims 1, 18 and 21, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 18 and
21, and claims 2, 7 to 9, 15 to 17, 19, 20, 24 and 25 dependent thereon, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Steenhoudt or Barnes
is reversed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007