Appeal No.97-2716
Application 08/261,772
column 2, lines 23-25) on a portable traffic sign having a
display portion formed of an open weave material, but there is no
teaching of placing a contrasting arrow thereon. While Wolff
teaches an arrow, it is in the context of a permanently installed
aerial indicator (note Fig. 12) which can be seen from airplanes
and is located near a facility such as an airport. More
specifically, the arrow of Wolff sits on top of a mat having a
plurality of open cells with lights positioned below the cells
such that
at night the space below the mat is illuminated and the
indicia [e.g., an arrow] thereon appears dark and the
mat light, from above, and thus provides easy reading
of the indicia . . . . [Page 3, lines 34-37.]
Absent the appellant’s own teachings we are at a loss to
understand why one of ordinary skill in this art would have been
motivated to single out the arrow from the disparate teachings of
Wolff and incorporate it into the arrow-like traffic indicator of
Adams by placing it on the triangular portion thereof (i.e., the
head of Adams’ arrow-like traffic indicator). This is
particularly the case because there appears to be neither reason
nor need for placement of an arrow on the indicator of Adams
inasmuch as Adams’ indicator is already in the shape of an arrow.
With respect to Rejections (3) through (8), we have
carefully reviewed the teachings of Hull, Hadzicki, Goff and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007