Appeal No. 96-3643
Application No. 29/008,022
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Bell Catalog Racket “C” (p. 363) 1980
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
clearly anticipated by the Bell Catalog and 35 U.S.C. § 103 as 3
being unpatentable over the Bell Catalog.
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3 and 4 of
the answer.
OPINION
Having carefully considered the respective positions
advanced by the appellants in the brief and supplemental brief
and by the examiner in the answer and supplemental answer, it is
our conclusion that neither of the above-noted rejections is
sustainable.
Considering first the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we
initially note that the “ordinary observer” test (as
distinguished from the “ordinary designer” test used in
determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103) is applicable in
2(...continued)
of a single inventive concept within the meaning of In re
Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959), cert. denied,
362 U.S. 903 (1960).
3This rejection was set forth as a new ground of rejection
in the answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007