Appeal No. 97-1085
Application 08/369,712
end with a means for attaching it to the support fixture, and at
its distal end with a tag molding for receiving and displaying
product information.
It is the examiner’s view that the subject matter recited in
the claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
either of the Fast references, recognizing that “[t]he width of
the baffle is considered as an obvious matter of engineering
choice” (Answer, page 3). The appellant argues that the claim
requires two spaced apart merchandise pegs, which is not present
in either of the applied references, and that the planar sheet
material must have a particular relationship with respect to the
pegs, which also is not taught by the applied references.
We agree with the appellant. Neither Fast reference is
concerned with the problem addressed by the appellant, that is,
the movement of air in the space adjacent to the claimed device.
In both of the references, a single merchandise peg is disclosed,
with a single sheet of planar material associated therewith.
Thus, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been taught by either Fast reference to utilize a single
planar sheet with a plurality of merchandise pegs. Furthermore,
while the planar sheets shown in these references appear to meet
the width limitation of claim 1, they certainly do not meet the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007