Appeal No. 97-0256
Application 08/233,215
in the same plane as the front and back covers of the article
when the article is opened in the manner noted above.
Based on the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rogow.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review are
those of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over PT in view of Clarkson and unpatentable over
Rogow in view of Clarkson. The examiner points to the line of
perforations (5) used in Clarkson to assist in separation of the
receipt (3) from the remainder of a page of the ledger book
therein and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the “L” shaped writing pad of
PT or the article of Rogow by providing a frangible line where
desired as shown in Clarkson. Like appellant, we see nothing in
the collective teachings of the applied prior art which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the combinations as
proposed by the examiner. It is again our conclusion that the
examiner has engaged in an improper hindsight reconstruction of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007