Appeal No. 95-2990
Application 08/147,907
were. However, there is no evidence of a long felt need in
the market.
Thus, the rejection of Claim 25 will be sustained.
Claims 22 and 23
Claims 22 and 23 cover a music teaching system in
which at least one card has a plurality of colors on its face.
These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Searing in view of either Chute or admitted
prior art.
According to the examiner, the ordinary artisan
would have been motivated to modify Searing by including more
than one color indicia on a single card for the purpose of
producing more than one note. Examiner’s Answer at 5.
Appellants argue that Searing teaches away from multiple
indicia. Appeal Brief at 9. We agree with appellants.
Searing teaches that multiple notes correspond to
multiple cards each with a single indicium, not to a single
card with multiple indicia. Column 8, lines 57-61. The
examiner has identified nothing in the cited art suggesting
the opposite approach as claimed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007