Ex parte MCBRIDE - Page 5




          Appeal No. 97-1977                                                          
          Application 07/970,862                                                      



          hidden location "are inherent from the disclosure."  In this                
          regard, the examiner has also indicated (answer, page 3) that               
                    [t]he removing and opening of the holder                          
                    of Williams is considered to be done in                           
                    a “single maneuver” to the extent this is                         
                    defined in the claims as the Williams device                      
                    is closed by loop and hook fasteners which                        
                    allow easy opening of the holder.                                 


                    The examiner next discusses the Connell patent, urging            
          that it discloses another type of holder, specifically one used             
          by a skier, wherein a ski trail map may be placed in the holder             
          in order that it may be viewed from time to time.  Based on the             
          collective teachings of Williams and Connell, the examiner                  
          concludes that                                                              
                    [i]t would have been obvious [to one of                           
                    ordinary skill in the art] to place a ski map                     
                    in the transparent pocket (40) of Williams in                     
                    view of the teachings of Connell et al. in                        
                    order for the active person to view a ski map                     
                    from time to time (answer, pages 3-4).                            


                    After reviewing the applied Williams and Connell                  
          patents and the respective positions of the examiner and                    
          appellant, we must agree with appellant's position that the                 
          examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of                      


                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007