Appeal No. 97-3070
Application 08/584,097
holder for an article,
i.e., stretched canvas or other painting surface). This being
the case, the second prong of the test set forth in Wood is
satisfied and therefore Akers is analogous art.
As to claim 15, the appellant states that the limitations
of claim 15 are "not relied on to show the nonobvious nature
of the claimed invention" (brief, page 11), but then
inconsistently argues that Markle is nonanalogous art. In any
event, we are of the opinion that Markle (which is directed to
a holder for photographic apparatus) is analogous art under
the second prong of the test in Wood for essentially the same
reasons we have set forth above with respect to Akers. More
importantly, we see no need to resort to the teachings of
Markle for establishing the obviousness of the subject defined
by claim 15 since Tolegian (in the embodiment of Fig. 1)
clearly teaches a rack 36, a pinion or gear wheel 38 and a
motor 37 as an alternative mechanism for adjusting the easel
(see column 2, lines 52-56).
In view of the above, we are satisfied that the prior art
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007