Appeal No. 97-1085
Application 08/369,712
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer
and the Appeal Brief.
The claims all stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when
the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Independent claim 1 is directed to an article support and
display device for use with a support fixture, which has two
components. The first is “at least two spaced apart merchandise
pegs” supported at their proximal ends by the support fixture and
having free distal ends to receive merchandise. In view of the
explanation of the invention in the appellant’s disclosure, we
have interpreted “spaced apart” to mean spaced laterally apart,
rather than vertically. The second component is a planar sheet
material “having a length greater than the distance between said
spaced apart merchandise pegs and a width proximate the distance
between said support fixture and the distal ends of said
merchandise pegs.” The planar sheet is provided at its proximate
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007