Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
examiner has failed to provide any evidence, as shown by some
objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art, that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the
flap of Warren's purse to extend under the bottom of the purse,
up adjacent the outer wall of the purse and over the top opening
of the purse to either the inner wall of the purse or his garter.
In our view, the examiner in this instance has resorted to the
use of impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the claimed
invention. Since all the limitations of claims 21 and 26 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, the examiner has
failed to meet the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Thus, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claims 21 and 26, or of claims 22
through 25 and 27 through 30, which depend therefrom.4
CLAIMS 31, 34 AND 35
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 31 as
being unpatentable over Warren in view of Worrall, Connell,
4We have also reviewed the Gershman reference additionally
applied in the rejection of claims 23 and 29 but find nothing
therein which would have suggested the limitation discussed
above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007